EU Enlargement: Welfare Payments

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What welfare payments will be available for persons entering the United Kingdom from the 10 new European Union countries after 1 May; and how these provisions compare with those offered by other European Union countries.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we will amend the relevant legislation so that nationals from the A8 states who are in the UK but who are not in work will generally not have access to income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, state pension credit, housing benefit or council tax benefit. On the second part of the Question, member states' schemes are different from each other—provisions for EU nationals, newly arrived from another member state, will depend on the nature of that state's scheme.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is strong support on this side of the House for a system which welcomes people here who intend to work and to become good citizens while, at the same time, deterring those who seek to gain welfare benefits only? Is the noble Baroness sure that the system which has been announced will do that? How will the second category of incomers be recognised at the airport, for instance? How will they be checked on and how will they be sent back if they are not doing the right thing? Surely they can disappear. Are there not already unknown thousands of illegal immigrants whom the Government cannot locate, check or return?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness's opening statement. The whole thrust of the Government's policy is to make a distinction between those who are in work—benefits follow the work—and those who are not so that we are not attracting those who seek to come here merely for benefits. The noble Baroness and I agree on that. On her second point, someone who is now working illegally, often undercutting wages and operating in dangerous health and safety conditions, will now be able to register, come on to the open market, pay his taxes and national insurance, and contribute more fully to the economy.
	The noble Baroness's third point was about people turning up. That is not the issue: people have a right to come here as visitors, tourists, and so on. If such people with no attachment to the labour market apply for benefit, they will not be so entitled.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, in the absence of a statement from the DWP, will the Minister say whether yesterday's Statement applies to tax credits, including child tax credits? Will she confirm that there will be no appeals process and give us the time-scale for the implementation of these proposals?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, tax credits are a worker-related benefit. They are currently available to French and German people working here, UK citizens and other people coming in under the A8 scheme. On appeals, the key decision is the right to reside. Obviously, benefit decisions are appealable in the usual way, but the Home Secretary said yesterday,
	"We will not need an appeals system under the rules".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/04; col. 29.]

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, as the new regulations apply to the 10 new applicant members of the European Union, and two of those countries are members of the Commonwealth, will citizens of Cyprus and Malta have their present rights of access and employment in the United Kingdom reduced as a result of joining the European Union?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have made a decision that Cyprus and Malta would be excluded from this derogation on three grounds. First, they are very small—I think the population of Malta is about 400,000. Secondly, their level of prosperity is broadly similar to our own, only a little below it; and, thirdly, as the noble Lord has acknowledged, we have historic connections to those countries.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I asked the noble Baroness a question yesterday to which I failed to get a reply. We were told that a person unable to support himself will lose his right of residence and will have to return home. What legal power will the Government have to remove such a person?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we would normally expect to deport a person only if, for example, he were a threat to national security, engaged in anti-social behaviour, and so on. As I indicated earlier, such people would not have a right to benefit if they were not in work and, if they had no right to benefit, why would they remain? Therefore, there is no need to get into the heavy end of deportation.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I ask that as a perfectly serious question, my Lords. People working in the black economy will now, as I indicated to the noble Baroness, be able to come into the mainstream economy and work. If, however, they have no means of self-support and they are not, as a result, eligible for benefits, then why would they be here unless they were doing something such as thieving, in which case we would be within our rights to remove them on the grounds of anti-social behaviour.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his Statement in another place yesterday, the Home Secretary said:
	"For two years, possibly longer, we will require accession nationals to be able to support themselves".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/04; col. 24.]
	I am grateful to the Minister for putting flesh on the bones of that remark. Why, then, did the subsequent press release say that this state of affairs would persist for only one year? Who is right?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not know to which press release the noble Lord is referring, but people who come here to jobs confirmed by the permit system that they will be using will have, after 12 months' continuous employment, the right to income-related benefits. Perhaps the noble Lord is referring to that information in the press release. However, those who have no attachment to the labour market during the two-year transitional period—which I understand we have the right to extend for a further five years—would not have the right to any benefits at all.

Lord Peston: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify a matter that puzzles me? I thought that the main point of joining the European Union was the free movement of labour. In that case, where does the concept of work permits come from if the European market is to be efficient? Surely, labour in the European Union should simply move to where it is most productive.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is entirely right. Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made the point very tellingly. We have something like 500,000 vacancies in this country, which she said were particularly in agriculture and the hospitality trades. I checked the figures and there are indeed something like 160,000 vacancies in the areas that she mentioned, so she is absolutely right. We want and need that labour. It will enrich our economy and society, and those labourers will be entitled to corresponding work-related benefits. We are not seeking to attract to this country people who have no intention of working and who come here primarily because our benefits system appears to be more attractive than the regime experienced at home.

Primates in Scientific Research

Baroness Barker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to support the continuation of research using primates in the United Kingdom.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are determined that Cambridge University's decision will not damage the ability of the UK to remain a world leader in medical research into diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and into strokes. We are exploring ways to ensure that the university can continue its important work in neuroscience. The Government support the need for biomedical research involving animals in line with the stringent conditions laid down in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We are also firmly committed to the protection of those scientists and research staff undertaking this vital work.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Given that the main reason for the decision was the estimate by Cambridgeshire police of the cost of laboratory security, what steps will the Government take to enable universities that carry out a great deal of this research to manage risks such as those posed by animal rights terrorists? How will the Government ensure that the necessary medical research into immunology, which requires work to be done on primates, will be continued in this country?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly the decision about the particular situation in Cambridge was for Cambridge University to make. However, I have already had a meeting with the MRC and the Wellcome Trust to examine alternative ways to expand and develop the world-class neuroscience research taking place at Cambridge. We are also looking at how we can ensure that the facilities for this expanding area of research are available on a national basis. I have met the Director General of the Research Councils, the head of the MRC, Colin Blakemore, and Mark Walport of the Wellcome Trust to initiate work in this area.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, on the question of primate rights, has my noble friend had a chance to examine the work of Sue Savage Rumbeau and Duane Rumbeau in Atlanta, Georgia, which shows that primates, and apes in particular, are capable of intelligent communication with the use of voice synthesisers? If that is the case, does it not have implications for this whole policy area?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know about that research. As far as using animals or non-human primates for this work is concerned, I direct the noble Lord to the report by the Select Committee of this House that considered this very question and came up with three conclusions:
	"1. The view of the Select Committee is that it is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals, but that it is morally wrong to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering . . . 2. There is at present a continued need for animal experiments both in applied research and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge . . . 3. Toxicological testing in animals is at present essential for medical practice and the protection of consumers and the environment, as it often provides information that is not currently available from any other source".
	Having said that, I will certainly look at the research although, from my rather limited knowledge of this area, what is being suggested is rather unlikely to be the situation.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, given that my Select Committee report to which the Minister referred also suggested the establishment of a national centre for the pursuit and development of the 3Rs with a view to reducing the amount of animal experimentation, what progress has been made towards the creation of such a centre since we last debated the matter in October?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are very supportive of that idea and I hope within a few days to make an announcement of our plans.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, could the Minister tell the House tell us whether there are any statistics on, or whether any information has been collated about, the number of people who oppose experimentation on animals for medical research—and, indeed, of that number, how many are prepared to take the medicine and receive the medical procedures that result from that testing?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it should always be pointed out that the number of people involved in the harassment and violence is in fact rather small. The great majority of people in this country are very supportive of work in this area, when they know about the stringent regulations of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Whether those people who resort to that violence and harassment take medicines, I do not know; it is quite likely that they do so, regardless of the fact that major medical advances in the area require work to be done with animals.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am aware of the work being done at the Yerkes primate centre in Atlanta, Georgia. Would the Minister agree that it is precisely because of the development of the primate brain that work on such animals, with the appropriate precautions, is essential for the improvement of the treatment of diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and many more? In that circumstance, will he ensure, as seems to be implied by his Answer, that such work is protected in the United Kingdom?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords, it is quite clear that such work is necessary, and necessary for the very reasons that the noble Lord mentioned. It is an essential part of studying diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's that primates are used. We in this country are world-class leaders in neuroscience, and I am absolutely determined that we shall continue to be world-class leaders in that field. Therefore, we shall take all the action that we can to support that work.

Fire Deaths

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many deaths due to fire occurred in 2003; how many of these were in private residences and how many were in other buildings; and, of the latter, how many buildings were fitted with a sprinkler system.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the latest figures available for the United Kingdom are for the calendar year 2002, when in incidents attended by the fire and rescue service there were total deaths of 578, of which 443 were in dwellings and 25 in other buildings. There was a total of 64,635 fires in dwellings. A water sprinkler system was present in 22 of those fires. There were 40,537 fires in other buildings, and a water sprinkler system was present in 691 of those fires.
	For the avoidance of doubt, so that I am not accused of misleading the House, earlier today very provisional figures were published for the financial year 2002–03, but I thought it best to use the figures that we had already prepared for this Answer.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the Answer that I was given when I raised the matter of sprinklers in relation to schools on 7 January has been acknowledged as wrong by the Lancashire Fire Brigade, which plays a leading role in the National Fire Sprinkler Network? That brigade wrote to the Minister at that time on that question. We were told that sprinklers would not have saved a particular school, whereas the sprinkler people say that it definitely would.
	Does the Minister agree that, whatever numbers have died, there would have been fewer deaths if sprinklers had been available? Would they not be particularly important in buildings where people are so vulnerable that they are incapable of getting themselves out, such as in the Scottish incident? I hope that the Minister will not tell me that that is a devolved matter, as it is the principle that I am talking about. A number of people have died very recently in those circumstances.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall not hide behind the point that it is a devolved matter, because the figures that I gave were United Kingdom figures and this is a UK issue. Our thoughts are with the families of the victims of Rose Park. However, I cannot say any more about that matter because there is an ongoing inquiry into it.
	In April 2001, a research project was funded and organised by the predecessor department to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the Building Research Establishment to consider fully the effectiveness of sprinklers in residential buildings across the piece. It is quite clear that in many situations sprinklers would be useful, particularly when people are vulnerable, whether in homes for children, the elderly or disabled people, and higher-risk houses such as houses in multiple occupation and very tall buildings—including, obviously, high-rise flat developments.
	The building regulations are being reviewed and, probably next year, a provisional consideration will be put forward. In 2006, an approval will be made of the document. Those regulations are reviewed on a regular basis. Those issues must be taken into account, as will the new system of the abandonment of fire certificates in favour of a risk-based system relative to the particular premises, which will be much more useful in those circumstances than the present arrangements.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there is now very powerful evidence that sprinklers in schools are cost-effective, especially if installed at the time of refurbishment or refenestration? Would he also acknowledge that the problem of schools with considerable roof voids can be tackled effectively with the installation of sprinklers?

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, that is self-evident. The issue will be part and parcel of the review of the building regulations that will take place. The research that has been funded has already been published on the ODPM website and will shortly be in the Library. The research occupies a large volume—I think it is 700 pages—but people can get a CD and look at it. A lot of work is being done on the issue, which will inform the new building regulations.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I have long been very concerned about fire doors. Many people dislike them; many frail people cannot shut or open them properly, and therefore leave them open, which negates their value. Have the Government or the Health and Safety Executive, for example, investigated alternative fire prevention methods, or will they do so? That is a matter of some urgency, given the comments that the noble Baroness and the Minister have made about recent events.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised an interesting point, because the issue is how to prevent fires in the first place. Lots of steps can be taken. I should have thought that that was a matter for the building regulations, although one problem with such regulations is that they usually apply only to new premises, so we must consider the stock that we already have. However, under the new system, when there is a risk-based assessment for a particular building, it will be open to the fire service—in the example given by the noble Baroness, for example—to insist on self-closing doors being fitted, so that there is no issue about keeping the doors open or the doors being too heavy for the elderly and vulnerable people to open. That negates the issue of a fire certificate, which was a piece of paper that gave people comfort but did not necessarily mean that they were safe.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that there is enough regulation concerning fire prevention in student accommodation, both in halls of residence and in smaller houses in multiple occupation? I ask that because I believe that there are exemptions to the housing regulations in relation to student accommodation.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I said earlier, that kind of premises would probably be a house in multiple occupation. People are vulnerable in such houses for lots of reasons, and we know of many fires that have happened in those circumstances. That is an issue that this House will debate, as the other place is debating, in the Housing Bill that is passing through it.

Lord Elton: My Lords, would the Minister consider repeating the valuable publicity campaign, drawing the attention of newcomers in the domestic field to the fact that throwing water on a fat fire turns it into an inferno? That is little known, and the knowledge could save many lives.

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, the department will obviously consider that suggestion, and it is an ongoing campaign. It is generally speaking the case that fire is dangerous and kills, but in many cases it is the smoke that is actually the cause of death. The smoke is highly dangerous—to victims and firefighters.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what the evidence is of decreased mortality or lesser danger in houses with smoke alarms in them? It is much easier to introduce a smoke alarm than to introduce a sprinkler system, particularly in a private house.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot. All the figures that I have given come only from fires attended by the fire and rescue service. For example, if there are loads of sprinklers that are effective and put a fire out, the fire service does not get called and the fire is not included in the figures. The figures are assembled only for fires, whether malicious or accidental, attended by the fire and rescue service. They are updated constantly, which is why even the figures that I have given for 2002 are marginally provisional. Every single death certificate and inquest result is checked back to ascertain the actual cause of death. There is a problem in that one cannot always be precise about the figures from every fire; so only the fires attended by the fire and rescue service are included.

Prison Population

Lord Dholakia: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the latest available figures for the prison population.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the prison population as of Friday, 20 February was 74,594. Of that total the number of sentenced prisoners was 61,365, and the number of remand prisoners 13,224.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Despite the number of initiatives taken by the Government the prison population remains unacceptably high. We now head the league table in western Europe and are overtaking Portugal in this particular process. Does the Minister agree that 60 per cent of those who leave prison reoffend within two years and that we now imprison twice as many women as we did when Labour came to power? Does he also agree that we need less rhetoric about how prison works and that we should make more use of non-custodial alternatives?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course I agree with the noble Lord that it would be much better for sentences to be served in the community. However, it is for the courts to determine sentencing and where someone should be sent. We have to bear that very important consideration in mind. If a crime is sufficiently serious and it is right to send people to prison, then of course they must be sent to prison. That is what the public expect; they expect to be protected. The Government have taken many initiatives to expand other alternatives to prison. The noble Lord has been among those who have praised us for doing exactly that.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I commend the Minister on the extra effort that the Prison Service is putting into dealing with some of the causes of reoffending by people within a couple of years of their release from prison. However, given that more crime is alcohol related than drug related, can he explain why there is no specialist, ring-fenced, accredited alcohol treatment programme in prisons in England and Wales?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are accredited programmes for dealing with alcohol and drug abuse and those programmes have been very successful. I think that the Government should be congratulated on the level of investment they have put into the health service within the prison estate, and on their initiatives to try to encourage people on release to be free of drug and alcohol abuse—factors which obviously have an impact on the rate of re-offending.

Lord Laming: My Lords, although sentencing is a responsibility of the courts, the courts nevertheless need to be reassured that the probation and aftercare service is being developed to make non-custodial sentences and aftercare attractive and effective propositions for courts. Do the Government have a robust strategy to develop the probation service?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have set up the National Offender Management Service, which brings together the probation service and Prison Service considerations to which the noble Lord referred, so that we have a coherent, cohesive and all-through service. The Government have also taken the important step of setting up the Sentencing Guidelines Council so that advice and guidance are available to the judiciary in the process of sentencing. We think that that will help ensure a better geographical spread within sentencing strategy and ensure that, where there is a conviction, the sentence is most appropriate to the crime.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the Minister may give the impression that these prison figures are acceptable. Does he agree that current trends threaten to increase them even further? At what higher level, therefore, would he regard such figures as unacceptable?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not for me to make a judgment on what is or is not acceptable. It is the Government's job to provide and ensure that there is adequate provision for those who are quite properly sentenced by the courts and sent to prison. It is also for the Government, as I said earlier, to ensure that an adequate range of sentences is available to the courts so that they can deal most appropriately with the lesser-order criminal activity and offences. That is exactly what we have done.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there are only 600 places left in our prisons? Will he explain to the House what are the Government's plans when that limit has been reached?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I understand it, as of today the prison population is about 510 below the total usable operational capacity of the prison estate. A number of changes are being implemented at a number of establishments to make available more places for prisoners. These adjustments will mean a rapid increase in usable operational capacity, by about a further 350 additional places. In the longer term we want to reform the correctional services—an objective in which we have been aided by the advice and support of Patrick Carter. We are trying to provide a range of more effective options for sentencers. There is always proper planning for contingency measures and an examination of other opportunities for safely increasing the capacity of the prison estate.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister accept that Schedule 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, inserted by the Home Secretary as his reaction to being told that he could play no further part in the sentencing of murderers, results in sentences for all serious offences increasing by at least 50 per cent? If he does accept that, what estimate do the Government give in relation to what the figures will be as a result?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think that we accept the noble and learned Lord's assertion. I therefore do not think that I could make a useful prediction based on that assertion.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that one objective of penal policy must be effective rehabilitation? Does he not therefore agree that one of the grave consequences of the overcrowding is that it is very difficult to do all the work that the Prison Service would like to do in the cause of rehabilitation? Does he not further agree that the pressure of numbers in prison, coupled with the fact that many people in prison are mentally sick and should not be in prison at all, is leading to an unacceptable level of deaths in custody?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that one should begin by saying that any death in custody is unacceptable. No one wants to see suicides in custody. The Government, and particularly the Prison Service, take the matter extremely seriously. Staff are trained to deal and cope with exactly those sorts of problems. A risk assessment programme is in place where it is thought that a prisoner might self-harm.
	The noble Lord is right that there are stresses and strains within the Prison Service; no one would want to gloss over that fact. However, the Government are investing much more in education within the prison estate. By the end of January 2004, the prison system, including public and contracted prisons, delivered 34,792 basic skills awards against an original projection of just 30,000 for that year. I think that that emphasises the fact that we are expanding educational activity in prisons, which is very much in line with the expanded budget for education in the Prison Service.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, do the Government have an explanation for why we have a much higher prison population per capita than any comparable western European country? Is it that we are more wicked, or the system more vindictive, or what?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know whether we are more wicked or not. I like to think that, by and large, we live in a liberal, peaceable community. However, when people offend they must be dealt with and they must face the full consequences of the law. I think that we all accept that fact.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, referring to the Minister's reply to the right reverend Prelate, does he not agree that the definition of "usable operational capacity" is the maximum safe overcrowded—I repeat the word "overcrowded"—capacity of the prison estate? In view of that, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect that sentencing policy, both currently and over the next 10 years, is expected to have upon the prison population in England and Wales? How has any such assessment affected the Government's building programme?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have made very careful assessment of the likely increase in the prison population. However, it is notoriously difficult to be precise in these matters. Some estimates last year suggested that we would have a rather larger prison population than we currently have, but that has not turned out to be the case. Following development of the building programme, by 2006 there will be operational capacity of 78,700 prison places. Statistics are notoriously easy to misinterpret but one good and, I thought, rather cheering statistic on which I alighted in my briefing indicates that the number of young people in prison is now 1 per cent less than it was this time last year, and that for juveniles aged 15 to 17 the figure is some 5 per cent less than the comparable figure for last year. That indicates to me that the Youth Justice Board is doing very important work and provides greater optimism for the future.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the number of women in prison has increased by 67 per cent since 1997. Of the 4,500 women locked up, more than half report a background of domestic violence and more than a third have been sexually abused. Does the Minister consider that putting those women in prison for the minor crimes that they have committed serves justice and reduces crime?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is hard to make a sweeping assertion that all of the women to whom the noble Baroness referred—it is obviously extremely unfortunate that they are in prison—are in prison for minor offences. I have no doubt that they will have been properly convicted by the courts for offences that merit a period of time in custody. While those women are in prison of course it is right that, following an assessment, correctional programmes are put in place which deal with the very many problems to which the noble Baroness referred. During my visits to female establishments within the Prison Service I was most impressed by the quality of the work that was carried out in particular to deal with matters such as self-harm, abuse, drug abuse, and so on. It is such work that we need to invest in to ensure that people do not reoffend and can usefully lead a valuable life outside prison.

Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures are double what they were in the 1980s when I served as prison Minister and that we regarded that as disgraceful? What sense of urgency is there in overcoming the problem of reoffending? How do the Prison Service and the probation service establish that no prisoner leaves prison without a means of support and shelter so that he is not driven immediately into crime again?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I have said on many occasions, it is for the courts to determine whether it is right for someone to go to prison. Of course, in sentencing they will act on the information that is before them to determine whether a sentence is appropriate. While prisoners are in prison it is right to establish—this is what we try to do—an appropriate programme of education so that prisoners can usefully lead a life outside prison that will enable them to keep free of crime and becoming involved in new crime. We are not complacent about the issue of recidivism. It is part of our determination to ensure that rates of re-offending come down.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, as regards the increased investment that this Government have made in the treatment of prisoners with alcohol and drug-related problems, can my noble friend assure us that there is a proper tracking system in place to ensure that if re-offending takes place a linkage is made with any treatment that has been given previously so that we can then assess whether the treatment is working effectively or not?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a very pertinent question. For that very reason the Government decided to embark on a more coherent strategy linking the Prison Service and the probation service so that when offenders are released from prison they have the opportunity to receive counselling, advice, guidance and referral to the services which try to get to the root of their alcohol or drug abuse problem and thereby reduce the level of reoffending. That is one of the areas in which we have invested heavily over the past few years.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many women prisoners have a high incidence of churning about and movement from one prison to another, therefore increasing the social damage incurred by their imprisonment in separating them from their families? Have the Government looked into the possibility of trying to return the large number of female drug runners or mules who are in prison in this country—they come mostly from the Caribbean islands—to the countries from which they originate to finish their prison sentence there because that particular section of the prison population has increased very rapidly in recent years?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness puts her finger on a very pertinent problem. My understanding is that there has to be a prisoner transfer agreement in place between this country and the country from which the so-called drug "mule" has come. Therefore, certain issues need to be examined in that regard. This is something that we keep very carefully under review in terms of policy and it is a matter that we are obviously considering at all times.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—this is a short question—of what happens to those prisoners who are seriously mentally disturbed but cannot be sectioned because they are untreatable and are sent from one prison to another? What happens to them? Is he aware of the problem?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware of the problem. I have visited a number of health centres within the prison estate. I am well aware of the difficulty to which the noble Lord refers. The Prison Service tries to develop an appropriate programme for each individual. That is obviously given very high consideration when dealing with the health, particularly the mental health, of each individual prisoner. However, it is not an easy problem to deal with, particularly as at various points of a prisoner's sentence he or she has to be moved from one establishment to another.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how many girls under 17 are in prison and how many of them are pregnant or have babies?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships' House as that is not in my key statistics list. However, I am more than happy to try to find out those figures, write to the noble Baroness and share them with your Lordships' House.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, is not making more use of community service awards one way of reducing the prison population? Can the Minister give us an assurance that magistrates in England can confer community service awards on people who reside under different judicial systems such as the one that applies in Scotland?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall have to think about that question. If the noble Lord will bear with me, I shall probably have to write to him precisely on how that might work.

Constitutional Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for replacing the office of Lord Chancellor and to abolish that office; to establish a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and to abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords; to make provision about the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the judicial functions of the president of the Council; to make other provision about the judiciary, their appointment and discipline; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [HL]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—
	Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clause 17, Schedule 2, Clauses 18 to 22, Schedule 3, Clauses 23 to 26, Schedules 4 and 5, Clauses 27 to 31.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on the British citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"Agreement with the United States Government on the return of five of the nine UK detainees was reached on Thursday last, 19 February. Although the House was in recess, I judged that it was only fair to the families of all nine detainees that they should be informed immediately. We therefore made every effort to contact the families and their parliamentary representatives and I made a public announcement late on Thursday afternoon. I could not report to the House yesterday as I had to attend the General Affairs Council in Brussels.
	"The attacks of 11 September 2001 were the most appalling terrorist atrocity the world has ever seen. They killed more than 3,000 people, including 67 British citizens. In response to those attacks, a coalition of countries came together to launch a military campaign against Al'Qaeda and its Taliban supporters to remove them from their strongholds in Afghanistan.
	"In these operations thousands of individuals believed to be Al'Qaeda or Taliban fighters, or their supporters, were detained by coalition forces. The vast majority of these individuals were released. But those who were deemed to pose a substantial risk of returning to the conflict—to date, around 800—were sent by the United States to its naval base in Guantanamo Bay to be detained and to be questioned about their knowledge of Al'Qaeda activities. As a result, valuable information has been gained which has helped to protect the international community from further Al'Qaeda and related terrorist attacks.
	"The Government have been in frequent and regular contact with the United States authorities concerning the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. From the outset, the Government have sought to ensure their welfare and have actively encouraged the US Government to resolve the position of the British detainees. British officials have visited Guantanamo Bay six times. We have kept their families and Parliament informed of the detainees' circumstances and of developments.
	"In July 2003, two of the British detainees were designated by the United States authorities as eligible to stand trial by United States military commissions established to prosecute the detainees. The Government made it clear straight away that we had concerns about the military commission process. Consequently my right honourable friend the Prime Minister asked my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to discuss with the United States authorities how the detainees, if prosecuted, could be assured of fair trials which met international standards.
	"The Attorney-General therefore held a number of discussions with the United States authorities about the future of the detainees. In parallel, the Prime Minister has talked to President Bush. I have discussed this matter on many occasions with US Secretary of State Colin Powell; and extensive discussions have been held between British and United States government lawyers and officials.
	"These discussions have involved many complex issues of law and security, which both governments have had to consider carefully. Although the discussions have made significant progress, the view of the Attorney-General was that the military commissions, as presently constituted, would not provide the process which we would afford British nationals.
	"Our discussions with the United States authorities are continuing. In the mean time, as I announced last Thursday, we agreed that five of the British detainees will return to the United Kingdom. They are Rhuhel Ahmed, Tareq Dergoul, Jamal al-Harith, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul.
	"These men will be flown home to the United Kingdom in the next few weeks. The House will understand that it would not be right to disclose the operational details at this stage. The police have, however, established links with the families so that they can be informed of developments.
	"The police have confirmed that once the detainees are back in the United Kingdom, where there are grounds under the provisions of the legislation, the five men may be arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 for questioning in connection with possible terrorist activity. Any subsequent action will be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment further on their particular cases.
	"But I would like to emphasise two points here. First, the police have said that they are investigating all the detainees thoroughly and individually, in the normal way, including the circumstances which led to the men's detention. Every necessary step, including prosecution if appropriate, will be taken to protect national security.
	"Secondly, the detainees will be treated in the same way as anyone else suspected of committing a criminal offence, in accordance with UK law. The process has built-in safeguards and is subject to independent scrutiny to ensure that all individuals are treated fairly and properly. It includes access to lawyers.
	"We shall continue our discussions with the United States authorities on the situation of the other four British detainees. They are Feroz Abbasi, Moazzam Begg, Richard Belmar and Martin Mubanga.
	"There are a range of security and other issues which we and the Americans are considering in respect of these four men. As a result of our talks, US legal proceedings against Mr Abbasi and Mr Begg were suspended in July and the US said that the men would not be subject to the death penalty. This remains the case.
	"Our overall position remains that the detainees should either be tried in accordance with international standards, or they should be returned to the United Kingdom. We shall continue to work to resolve their position. I will of course keep the House informed.
	"The Government remain determined to work with our allies around the world to defeat the scourge of global terrorism. Terrorists seek to deny the most basic of human rights—to life, to security, and the right to go about our daily business free from threat and harm. We will continue resolutely to defend these rights through a robust and determined approach to combating terrorism and its networks of support wherever it is to be found".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and I should make it clear that on these Benches we are glad that some progress is at last being made in sorting out the complex issues behind both these detainees and the others at Guantanamo Bay.
	We appreciate—as others have not always done—that from the earliest days in the Guantanamo situation the world has been confronted with a unique situation in human history and international affairs, where the individuals concerned were apparently deliberately participating in the stateless pursuit of terrorism, with the aim of killing, injuring and maiming non-combatants; and had placed themselves far outside the international law of war and outside recognised categories of behaviour or offence. So it was understandable that at the outset their status was bound to be ambiguous and that gap had to be filled by the concept of unlawful combatants.
	But that time has passed and the situation must now be cleared up. Today's Statement raises a raft of important questions. First, the Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, has told the media that none of the five named by the Minister and who will be released by the US authorities,
	"represents a security threat to the British people".
	Well, aside from that being a somewhat premature and improper judgment, many people want to know how the Home Secretary knows that—before investigations have been completed by the police and before questioning has taken place. Is it not absolutely vital in the interests of national security that each case should be rigorously examined and fully assessed to see whether there is sufficient evidence to justify proceedings? It is essential that the circumstances and causes of the original detention must be established.
	It is, of course, for the prosecuting authorities to decide the nature of any charges, but has anyone considered whether charges for treason would be appropriate if those concerned can be shown to have taken up arms against British forces and the British Crown? I know that this morning the Foreign Secretary dismissed that as "a hare", but was he right to do so, given the uniqueness of the circumstances? Should we not keep our minds open on that aspect? What will happen to the five individuals when they arrive here? Will they be held in custody when they touch down or will they be allowed home while being investigated prior to possible arrest? Can the noble Baroness tell us something about that?
	As to the other detainees—the four left behind—first, what is the difference between the five transferred here and the four retained at Guantanamo Bay? Do those four constitute a threat to our national security when, according to the Home Secretary, the other five do not? Will they go on to face the proposed military tribunals, which two of them were already beginning to face before the process was previously stood down? Are we satisfied that those procedures meet the international standards in which we believe? I do not consider that earlier we were so satisfied. Therefore, are discussions continuing about their fate and the way in which they are to be handled?
	The Foreign Secretary said this morning that the new threats that the world faces were not only unique but were not anticipated. That is quite wrong. From the dawn of the information age, it was obvious that global protest and terror would be given new organisational impetus, and many of us said so at the time. If one adds suicide readiness to the lethal brew, we have the present completely predictable combination of threats to our open and highly vulnerable societies which we have never before experienced. In a sense, the feared rendezvous between new miniaturised and hideous weapons and methods of slaughter and the agents of terrorism has already arrived. Everyone is now in the front line and exposed to terror initiatives and the terror resources of often small cells or individuals, who can reap the most horrifying damage on our normal and everyday lives.
	Of course, we want this country to be—it has to be—the champion of the rule of law, but that law must arm us to be able to address the new threats and the new terror and to protect our citizens and not handicap us from doing so. There must be a balance between established notions of law and doing our utmost to ensure people's security. That is the balance that we want to see maintained both here and, ultimately, in the treatment of all the other detainees remaining at Guantanamo Bay.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this robust Statement—and we interpret it as a robust Statement. We welcome, in particular, the confirmation that the Attorney-General's view is that the military commission, as presently constituted, would not provide a process that we would find acceptable for British nationals. We also welcome the clarification that investigations on the returnees will be conducted "in the normal way" with detainees treated,
	"in the same way as anyone else suspected of committing a criminal offence",
	under UK law. Those are extremely important points.
	I understand that, on Friday, Trevor Kavanagh—an extremely well connected political journalist working for the Sun—said on Jeremy Vine's programme on Radio 2 that he had been told by senior Cabinet and security sources that the five were to have security surveillance for the rest of their lives once they returned from London. I do not know whether the Minister has any information on that report.
	We recognise the effort that the Government have made to represent the British case to the American authorities. One has to say that if the situation had been reversed and the British authorities had been holding American nationals in a similar way, we can imagine the outcry that would have come from Washington.
	I regard the behaviour of the Bush Administration in relation to Guantanamo Bay over the past two years as, in the strictest sense, un-American. I speak as someone who used to study and teach American politics in American universities, and I used to teach the United States constitution as the epitome of the rule of law. What we have seen from the Bush Administration over the past three years has been a falling away from the principle of the rule of law, both within the United States and internationally. We have seen the Geneva conventions ignored; we have seen, as the Statement said, the behaviour of the United States falling well below international standards; and we have seen the unacceptable legal void of Guantanamo Bay.
	Will the Minister confirm that prisoners are not being held at Bagram and Diego Garcia? There have been repeated reports in the US press that some prisoners have been held at Diego Garcia. Again, I should welcome the Minister's confirmation that that is, and remains, without foundation.
	We recognise that we have seen patient and quiet diplomacy by British officials and Ministers at the highest level. We should like an assurance from the Government that, if necessary—that is, if patient diplomacy is not enough—they will resort to public protest if that is the only way to ensure that British citizens receive appropriate treatment after two years or more in American custody.
	Lastly, I repeat and strengthen the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. We heard about five detainees being returned. Two are being subjected to trial under certain guarantees, but we still do not know what will happen to Richard Belmar and Martin Mubanga. Can we be told what will happen to the eighth and ninth suspects?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given the Statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we particularly welcome the context in which he started his comments. However, I think it is only fair to say that none of us envisaged the possibility of two armed aeroplanes being flown into buildings in the way that occurred on 11 September. That was a dramatic shock to the international community.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked a number of questions. I hope that I made it clear in the Statement that I cannot go into the detail of the operational issues relating to the return of those who have now been identified to be returned to the UK. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that each case will be looked at on an individual basis. It will be considered rigorously and properly to ensure that all that should be done is done.
	I note the noble Lord's comments concerning the statements made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. But, of course, the Home Secretary was correct because, following the investigations, either these individuals will be arrested and dealt with if they form a threat or, if the evidence does not justify such an act, they will not. Therefore, in those circumstances, our protection of national security will be maintained.
	Before questioning by the police, the individuals will be examined to see whether they are medically fit to be interviewed. They also have a right to access to a defence lawyer. They can be questioned for an initial period of 48 hours, after which a court must approve further detention. Detention is, of course, a matter for the police. The men were interviewed in Guantanamo Bay by the security services on matters relevant to national security and not for prosecution purposes. Therefore, the decision will and must be left to the police authorities acting on any appropriate and proper advice given to them by the Crown Prosecution Service.
	In relation to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about whether there are people being kept at Diego Garcia and elsewhere, the US has confirmed to us that there are no such detainees. Of course, we rely on that assurance.
	I can give an assurance from which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, may derive comfort. We have not changed our approach about the necessity to comply with international standards in relation to these men and we shall not do so. It is of some comfort that the acuity and persuasiveness of what we have managed to do has enabled five detainees to be properly returned. The noble Lord rightly said that legal proceedings were commenced in relation to two others, which were put into abeyance pending our discussions. Our discussions have not concluded. We are assured that nothing will be done until those matters have been concluded.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I congratulate the Government, the Attorney-General, and the noble Baroness in particular, on the continuing efforts that have been made, over a very long period of time, to ensure that this totally unacceptable situation, in breach of the rule of law, is now beginning to be corrected. I am glad that she confirmed that further investigation, and as I understand it considerations of prosecution, will follow our usual independent system for all our citizens. Has that been made quite clear to the American authorities? Lastly, as regards the last four, what steps will the Government take—I am sure that some steps are being taken already—to try to get legal access to those who remain behind?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his congratulations. In particular, I warmly welcome the congratulations made in relation to my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General among the others who have worked so hard and assiduously on this issue.
	We have made clear our position about the process that will be adopted by us in relation to the return of these men. It has been made absolutely clear to our American colleagues that the process of our law will operate in relation to them in exactly the same way as it would operate in relation to any other British citizen. That matter is clear between us. We have continuously taken advantage of our ability to have consular visits to the British men detained in Guantanamo Bay. I can assure my noble friend that we believe that we have seen our detainees more frequently than any other nation.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I did ask about legal access.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the issues in relation to the trial, maintenance and how those matters will be dealt with continue to be matters of discussions of the most robust nature between us and our American colleagues.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I have two very short questions for the noble Baroness. Under the current law, how long can the five be detained without being charged? Secondly, has she any information as to when the United States Supreme Court might reach a decision on the legality of the detention at Guantanamo Bay?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can tell the noble and learned Lord that a terrorist suspect can be held under the Terrorism Act for a period of 14 days. The suspect must then be charged or released. The suspect must be released at any time beforehand as soon as the investigating officers become aware that the grounds for detention no longer apply. I can reassure the noble and learned Lord that all those debates in relation to the Terrorism Act in which he participated so energetically will bear fruit in relation to these detainees.
	The noble Lord also asked about the Supreme Court. I am not able to give him an answer. If I am able to, I shall, but that is within the ambit of the American authorities. I am not aware of whether they have a timetable.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, while I acknowledge and welcome the strong statement that has been forthcoming from the Attorney-General, in particular about standards of trial required to meet international acceptability, does the Minister acknowledge that opinion within the United States is by no means fully supportive of the administration and that federal district courts have found Guantanamo detentions to be unconstitutional? Are the Government prepared to make it plain that quiet diplomacy is the method that they prefer, but that if unconstitutional actions are pursued against American or other citizens, we should regard it as an unfriendly act, and not one that we would be prepared to conceal within quiet diplomacy?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am aware that there is a very wide debate in the United States on this issue. I am also aware that that is a matter of hot debate and contention in the United States. I can confirm that I have that understanding.
	As to the quiet diplomacy, we believe that the robust diplomacy that we have exercised has borne fruit. Of course, we shall continue to pursue it and we hope that we shall have similar success in due course.
	I should just say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that a note has arrived from the Box which indicates that the Supreme Court is due to rule at the end of June.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I, like others, have the most profound respect for the work that my noble friend and her colleagues have been doing in this context. Like others, I have particular respect for the work done by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, not least in the way that he has publicly sustained the need, to which my noble friend referred, to see the protection of the rule of law as part of the stand against terrorism and the need not to concede to terrorists the victory of having undermined our commitment to the rule of law. Would she therefore accept that as close allies and friends of the United States, while putting our commitment to our own citizens at the top of our anxiety, we have a responsibility to argue that what is wrong is Guantanamo Bay? There are a lot of people remaining in Guantanamo Bay who are not British citizens. The principles that we are arguing apply for our citizens apply every bit as much for them. We look to the United States, as our close friend and ally, to redress what is wrong with the whole arrangement.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, noble Lords will know that even among the very best of friends there can be differences of view that have to be respected and understood. I remind my noble friend that the United States of America suffered a grievous blow and sometimes when one is badly wounded it takes a little time to grow confident. The role of friends is to be resolute in standing by their side in times of difficulties but also to point out where the differences lie. That is the role that Her Majesty's Government have played and shall continue to play for the foreseeable future.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister stated that the prisoners were to be returned here within a few weeks. Is there a reason for the delay?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is not any reason for delay. However, for operational reasons it would be inappropriate for me to be more specific as to when.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister and the Government for their efforts on behalf of individuals who are soon to return to this country. My first question follows that raised by my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lord Maclennan on the view of the Attorney-General in relation to the due process of law in the United States. What would be the Government's position if the US Government do not provide a due process acceptable to the British Government? Do they have a plan B?
	My second question relates to the statement made by the Minister that the five men may be arrested. The due process of law in this country entitles them to legal advice and lawyers at the time of arrest. These people have gone through severe trauma and have been subjected to a tremendous amount of pressure over a long period of time. I am not here to determine their guilt or innocence; that is for a court of law to decide. However, surely, access to lawyers must be provided to those people the moment they arrive in this country so that they are properly informed as to what is likely to happen to them.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is why I said as clearly as I could that they would have to be medically fit and have access to lawyers when they arrived. I hope I made clear that I agree with the noble Lord that access to legal advice is a right which they are entitled to be offered and to exercise if they so choose. I reassure noble Lords that that is understood. Nothing will be done in relation to these detainees which differs from that which we would all expect to be done to any other British citizen.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, assuming that the prisoners are returned to this country within a reasonable period of time, can the Minister tell the House what their status will be when they arrive here? Will they arrive back as prisoners or suspects or be placed under arrest? I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, they will be brought back and will remain what they are now; that is, British citizens. When they arrive, the police will have to determine whether to investigate and whether to prosecute. It is the same position that any one of us would be in if we were in a similar situation.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the extent to which they have constantly referred to the need to observe the due process of law. Is there not a slight risk of hypocrisy entering this approach in view of the ouster provisions in Clause 10 or 11 of the asylum Bill, which prevent any application for due process in regard to decisions under that Bill? Even the suggestion that there has been a lack of jurisdiction is not to be permitted to be dealt with by the courts. A ring of steel has sought to be inserted in regard to that Bill so that the courts cannot in any way interfere with the decision made under its provisions. Is there not just a hint of hypocrisy entering into this subject if the Government continue to support those provisions?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we would say, "no". I understand the temptation the noble and learned Lord has to conflate the two debates, one on asylum and the other on what should happen as regards prosecuting or investigating an offence which refers to a British citizen. When the Bill reaches this House no doubt we shall have the delight of debating those provisions at length.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the Americans appear to be so uncomfortable with their own judicial ability to try people in the way that they would normally be tried? I can understand the terrifying attacks that were made on them but, with the very well organised and historical links of the American judicial system I still do not understand why they feel they have to go outside it in this case.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot speak for the Americans and it would be improper for me to do so. All I can say is that I have made plain what is the British position.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Report received.
	Clause 2 [Regional Spatial Strategy]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
	"(1A) The RSS shall include a statement of community involvement."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, at the start I shall apologise for my voice. I hope that it will last as I have quite a lot of speaking to do today.
	As noble Lords will recall from Committee, the amendment would require that the Government put on the face of the Bill a measure to ensure that regional spatial strategies include statements of community involvement. We had a worthwhile discussion on the amendment on the first day in Committee but it was somewhat overshadowed by the vote immediately preceding it.
	What was particularly interesting was how much we all agreed. We agreed on the principle of the aim of the amendment to ensure the involvement and consultation of communities in the process of revising regional spatial strategies. We also broadly agreed on the practicalities, although we did not discuss that in much depth. Thus, the only point of difference that remained was the question of how much detail would be on the face of the Bill. That is the particular point that I want to pursue today.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, stated that the Government would guarantee community involvement in the RSS process by detailing the requirements of consultation in regulations; that is, secondary legislation. Our attention was also drawn to the draft planning policy statement on regional planning, PPS11, which sets out what a regional consultation should look like.
	However, as helpful as the Minister's replies were—we were grateful to receive a detailed list of all the relevant bodies that the regional planning body must consult—the fact is the Minister could not justify the Government's reluctance to put this measure on the face of the Bill. Specifically, he was not able to justify the Government's position on two related questions. Those were and remain, first, why are the Government putting in Clause 18 a statutory requirement for local planning authorities to prepare statements of community involvement and yet are legislating for such a requirement for regional planning bodies only via secondary legislation? Secondly, why do the Government resist such a small number of words which would demonstrate their commitment to democracy at all levels of governance, especially when they have embraced the aim of the amendment?
	I regret to say that the Minister's responses to those questions were less illuminating than is customary for him. For that reason I am trying to be as clear as possible in asking those questions again. I do not dispute that most of the details of how to secure community involvement in the RSS process are best left to guidance and regulations. Nor do I dispute that the regional spatial strategy will be quite different from the local development plan and therefore will require different processes in its preparation, including the process of securing community and stakeholder participation. But accepting these two points in no way lets the Government off the hook.
	Despite the fact that we have made some strong progress in terms of the Bill's provisions regarding accountability, I believe that we should still be seeking to give the proposed changes much more robust democratic credentials. The proposed system needs to be less top-down and more bottom-up.
	This short amendment will go a long way towards achieving that aim. It would help emphasise and guarantee the continued centrality of democratic engagement to the planning system in this country. The message to regional planning bodies would be clear: regional planning may be less local than structure plans or local plans, but as a process it is no less obliged to secure meaningful involvement.
	As I previously said, according to research conducted by the Local Government Association, 95 per cent of planning authorities said it would not be easy to secure meaningful community involvement in regional planning. Thus, given the obvious concerns of the community of professional planners about how community involvement will be achieved, it is vital that the Government send the signal that securing community participation is an essential part of the regional planning process.
	The amendment is nine words long. Thus, we can hardly be accused of overburdening the Bill with unnecessary detail. I think we all agree that securing meaningful participation will represent a positive aim for the new system to try to achieve. If we value this as highly as I think we do, and as I think we should, a statement of community involvement must be included in the RSS and this must be legislated for on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, our Amendment No. 31 is in this group. We very much support the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. We have chosen, however, to try and express the issue in Clause 6 and at somewhat greater length than has the noble Lord—although I recognise that that is not always a matter for congratulation in this House.
	Our amendment proposes that not only must the regional planning body prepare a statement of community involvement, but before it does so it should also consult people whom it thinks have an interest in matters relating to the development and use of land within its region, and it states:
	"The statement of community involvement is a statement of the authority's policy as to the involvement in the exercise of the body's functions under",
	the relevant sections of the Bill. The Minister is likely to tell us—because he will be consistent—that the amendment is unnecessary; that it is covered in regulations; and that we should not put more provisions on the face of the Bill. In Committee, he said that such an amendment would not add value. I accept that it might not add value to the Government's policy and aims, but I believe that it would add value to the legislation.
	If the Bill when enacted lasts for as long as have previous major pieces of legislation regarding town and country planning, this Government are unlikely to be the Government for the whole of its tenure.
	The draft regulations require the regional planning body to consult such of the "general consultation bodies" as it considers appropriate and, indeed, require a statement on consultation. The "general consultation bodies"—and they are bodies and not individuals—are voluntary bodies, which represent racial, ethnic and national groups in the region, different religious groups, the interests of disabled persons and business interests. I suspect that that is not a catchall. I wondered first about amenity groups, but I daresay they come within voluntary bodies.
	What about, for instance, education? The Minister may say that that is not a spatial matter—at any rate not at regional level. But I wonder whether that is actually so, especially when one thinks about higher and tertiary levels and skills training, and, as I have said, the provision relates to bodies and not individuals. There seems to be no place in this thinking for individuals to contribute.
	We are keen that the new planning arrangements and their outcome are, to use the jargon, "owned" by the communities, which they should be designed to serve. The communities, of course, are made up of individuals who may express themselves sometimes through bodies but at times as individuals.
	The Government may know that they will always require a statement in such an approach, but do not trust the local authorities to provide a statement of community involvement without including it in primary legislation. So, do they trust all future governments?
	I know that it is not easy to collect and collate views at regional level, but planning requires a lot of public trust; and the more remote it is the less is the trust. I have referred to the draft regulations, but I think that the annex to the consultation paper is splendid in this regard on community involvement. It states that "community" means,
	"all those who have an interest in and a contribution to make . . . individuals as well as local authorities and bodies representing various interest groups. [It means] more than the provision of information and the invitation to respond . . . It should mean the opportunity to participate in shaping the RSS revision".
	It continues:
	"The benefits of this include giving the community an element of ownership"—
	I did not realise when I previously used the term that it was actually in the consultation document—
	"thereby increasing the chances of successful implementation".
	The paper says that community involvement,
	"should be project managed in the same way as the rest of the RSS revision process, to which it is integral".
	It talks about identifying the anticipated resource cost, the responsibilities for managing the process, and so on.
	Today we had the announcement of the consultation on the new PPS1—Planning Policy Statement 1. The news release from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister states:
	"PPS1 also makes clear community involvement in the planning system is crucial".
	I am sure it does. I admit to not yet having read the draft that has been released. It continues:
	"Effective community involvement requires processes for informing peoples about policies and proposals in good time; enabling communities to put forward their own ideas and participate in developing proposals and options; consultation on formal proposals; and feedback".
	That expresses the issue beautifully, so let us have it in the Bill.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that my noble friends will take very seriously the issues being put forward. For me there is an issue of joined-up political thinking. Currently, we are spending a good deal of time in this House considering how we can re-engage a wider proportion of the electorate in the political system—making the voting processes more accessible; and trying to get a higher participation in those processes.
	It is difficult to think of many issues that affect more people more significantly than planning issues in terms of the whole character of the area where they live. I believe that what is sometimes referred to as the alienation of the public about the political process is, in fact, a feeling that, in the end, it is not worth trying to do anything because, inevitably, the powers that be will prevail. Considering all that the Government are doing in other spheres, I cannot conceive that they do not believe deeply that it is very important for people to feel empowered and able to be significant in the evolution of policy. To relegate how that is to happen in this context to regulations seems to me to miss an opportunity. To have on the face of the Bill the fact that community engagement and involvement can be an important part of a democratic society would have provided a stronger position.
	I accept the Government's commitment in that direction and their intention. I do not accuse them in any way of bad faith. Therefore, if there is a vote on this amendment, I shall not vote against the Government. However, I feel sad that an opportunity to include, in very specific terms, a statement on the face of the Bill that reasserts the importance of the community in this crucial matter is being missed.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I fully accept the reason for returning to this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, politely said that in Committee the subject came up just after a vote—the first defeat of the Government this year. I have here all the arguments that I rehearsed in Committee, which clearly did not impact in any way on the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or my noble friend Lord Judd, so I shall not use any of those. I shall turn to the last page of my brief.
	It goes without saying that we are absolutely committed to proper community involvement and consultation in regional plan making. We remain to be convinced about adding to the Bill in the way that the amendments propose, but in view of the depth and substance of the debate today, I shall take these amendments away and seriously consider whether we can find a way of meeting the desire. My noble friend said that trust is a key point and that the powers that be always get what they want. I shall take the matter away and return at Third Reading with something that will satisfy the House.
	There has to be a test: whether the powers will provide additional safeguards, generate more community involvement, and restore or improve the trust of people. We believe that we have in place means to do that in a secure way—we have been sincere throughout. In view of today's debate and the fact that I have no arguments other than those that I used in Committee, it would be superfluous to use them again because they did not make an impact. I do not think this will cost us a great deal but it could have a major impact. Therefore, we shall take the matter away, give it serious consideration and hope to satisfy the House at Third Reading.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his support. As I said, there appears to be much agreement on this matter, and very few words to add to the Bill, but they would give much reassurance to many people in what is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, a new planning system that one imagines will last a long while. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will return with something quickly as we shall want to consider our strategy for the future. I accept what he has said today, but I hope that we do not have to wait until Third Reading. Perhaps he could let us know the Government's thinking before we get to Third Reading. If he can give me that assurance, I will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am conscious that in the past few days I have flooded noble Lords and colleagues with paperwork, trying to answer the points that they made previously. Part of the motive was to avoid long speeches at Report stage, and part of it was to give information and explanation of issues that were raised in Committee and to give advance warning of what the Government propose to do with amendments as far in advance as possible. Naturally, that applies to what I have just said regarding the community involvement in relation to the two amendments in this group.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 10, leave out "must set out" and insert "shall have regard to"

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, on this amendment we revisit the Government's justification for the policies that the regional spatial strategy will contain. As before, this amendment would change the nature and content of the regional spatial strategy. The RSS would have regard to the Secretary of State's policies rather than simply setting them out. We believe that the amendment is necessary because if the Government are determined to establish regional planning in the form of regional spatial strategies, they must allow RSSs to be fully owned by regional planning bodies.
	As I have said previously, it is not unreasonable to interpret Clause 2 as conceiving a regional spatial strategy as nothing more than a planning document which sets out the Secretary of State's policy agenda for a particular region. The amendment is aimed at freeing up the regional planning bodies via regional spatial strategies from being simply the mouthpiece of Whitehall policy. The amendment addresses the concern expressed by many interested parties that unless there are changes to the way that regional spatial strategies are established in legislation, there will be no space for local accountability as planning policy is implemented on the ground.
	Of course, we recognise the importance of the Government's role in giving strategic leadership to the planning system. We do not understand why the RSS must set out the Secretary of State's policies in relation to the development and use of land within a region. Why can it not set out its own policies while having regard to the framework of national policy? Is it not obvious that if one is to set up regional planning bodies, they should be accountable for their own policies rather than for the Secretary of State's policies?
	It is vital that we bolster the capacity of regional planning bodies to respond to local conditions. At the moment this legislation simply fails to recognise the enormous differences and variations between and within regions in current land use and development and future needs. As it stands, Clause 2(2) would lead to the accelerated fossilisation of regional spatial strategies because they would constantly have to keep up with the rate at which new demands emanate from Whitehall in order to satisfy the requirement to set out the Secretary of State's policies.
	If the Government are serious about devolving power to the regions and about devolution, how can they square that with a policy that makes regional planning bodies, even after the establishment of elected regional assemblies, simply the agents of Whitehall and Westminster? Not only is democratic accountability being sucked out of the system by transferring powers upwards, away from counties, but it also leaks out at the regional level. As I said, regional planning bodies may find themselves accountable for policies that they do not support and over which they can exercise no control.
	In the brave new world of devolution and elected regional assemblies, one cannot simply transfer the old accountabilities on to the new regional structure. The regional spatial strategy should not be a vehicle for simply setting out government policy; it should be a strategic vision that meets the planning needs of local communities. Their elected representatives should agree it. Of course regional spatial strategies will still have to have regard, as I said before, to the Government's priorities, which is accepted. The amendment maintains that important dimension.
	The amendment ensures that regional spatial strategies are permitted the necessary flexibility to respond to conditions in their areas. It would go a small way towards restoring a better balance between local accountability and central control. By establishing regional planning bodies' ownership of the regional spatial strategy and removing a key mechanism by which the Secretary of State can exert total central control over regional planning, the amendment reasserts the principle of democratic accountability as being fundamental to an effective planning system. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. I looked back to see what the Minister said on this issue in Committee, and I must say that it was a little difficult to relate his remarks—which were to a group of amendments—to this point. I confess that I have struggled with this subsection and whether by altering it we would in any way affect the potential vacuum to which the Minister drew our attention at the last stage, if the regional planning guidance did not morph straight into the regional spatial strategy. I do not think that that is so, but it is significant that the provision is in Clause 2, which is essentially the clause that sets us off down the road of regional spatial strategies and will remain in there. This is the Secretary of State top-down from the top of the Bill.
	Our concern is to get the right balance of observance of national policies, so there is an issue of the extent to which they can be debated, given the form that they take. We must get the balance right between national policies and local and regional interests. I include localities and local areas because they must be in conformity with the regional spatial strategy. The interests run all the way up and down society.
	This is the Secretary of State top-down from the top of the Bill. We made that point time and time again, probably to the point of tedium, at the last stage. The fact that we will not make it on every amendment this time does not mean to say that the issue has gone away. We support the amendment.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not sure that I followed what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said. There seemed to be an assumption in what he said about devolution that this was the Secretary of State always getting his own way. I will make this absolutely clear—under our present governance arrangements, the Secretary of State has regional planning policies. He is accountable for them both now and under the changed system. However, if there were elected regional assemblies cutting out this function, the Secretary of State would not need any regional spatial policies. The issue of devolution means that you remove completely the Secretary of State's role—it would be for the regional planning body. This assumption that it is the Secretary of State all the while, even with devolution, is simply not true. If there has been a misunderstanding about that, I apologise. I obviously did not explain it clearly in Committee, but that is the reality. This is not an issue of the Secretary of State running riot.
	Furthermore, when the regional planning bodies prepare revisions of the regional planning guidance now and of spatial strategies in the future, under the present arrangement—without an elected regional assembly—because they know better than Whitehall, if they wish to depart and divert from national policy and make the case for that in the examination in public, they are free to do so. Obviously, Ministers who then reach a view on the final form of the policies must take into account the case made in the panel report. It would not be possible, even if the examination in public came down in favour of the regional planning board deviating from national planning policy, for the Minister to then say, "No, I have got my own policy". That would be an unreasonable, irrational approach by the Minister, which would be subject to my learned friends in judicial review.
	There is an underlying assumption in this amendment and in both the speeches that we have just heard that this is the Secretary of State laying down the rules and laying down the laws, whether or not there is devolution. That is simply not the case.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, why does the Secretary of State then have the power to override the inspector's report in Clause 9(6), where the Secretary of State if he thinks fit can strike out any provisions in the RSS that the inspector has agreed on the submission of the RPB?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, but as I have just said—we are talking about two different sets of circumstances here. If it is the case that there are devolved elected regional assemblies, the Secretary of State will not have any regional planning policies anyway. There will not be anything at the centre for the Secretary of State to have. The way in which the Bill is drafted covers both those sets of circumstances. Whether there are elected regional assemblies is a matter for the people to choose, initially in the three regions that we have all talked about, later this year. The fact is that he would not have a role to play, because he would not need any regional spatial policies in the first place, because they would be in the ownership of an elected regional assembly.
	I make that absolutely clear, in case there is any doubt about this at all. We do not think that this is a straitjacket approach, which is the view that has been raised about the negation of democracy. That simply is not the case. The planning bodies still have the freedom to set it out, and I am not looking at a particular part of the Bill, but the Secretary of State cannot act on a whim or a hunch. He must act rationally. If he does not, he is subject to challenge in the courts. He cannot simply dismiss reports or dismiss evidence. I have given an example. If the panel report came out in favour of a departure from the national plan that the regional planning body had made, it would be difficult in those circumstances, unless they were most exceptional, for Minister to override. Their decision would have to be made in the light of the panel report. It is not a question of them simply dismissing this. Therefore, we do not think that this amendment is necessary.
	I have a couple of paragraphs that would be worth putting on the record, for the avoidance of any doubt later on, and for those who follow our proceedings. It will only be a short one. I have made the point that the two arguments in the two speeches are based on a false premise. Our fundamental approach is that the regions need planning policies that are specific to the circumstances in each region. The provisions in Clause 2(2)—which is what this amendment seeks to change—specify that regional spatial strategy must set out the Secretary of State's spatial strategies. This has been described as a straitjacket and a negation of democracy. It has also been argued that it is inconsistent with the provisions in the Bill that provide for the first regional spatial strategy for each region to be such regional planning guidance as the Secretary of State prescribes. There is another debate about that later on, so I will not go into detail.
	We must be clear about the relationship between the Secretary of State's national planning policies and the regional spatial strategies. Clause 6 requires regional planning bodies to have regard to national policies in preparing a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy. That relationship is also true of the regional planning guidance. We want the regional planning bodies to articulate in the regional spatial strategy the spatial vision of what the region will look like at the end of the period of the strategy. That vision will be unique to that region and will not replicate other regions or be a subset of the national picture. The regional planning bodies will have the freedom to set out the policies that will work in their region to turn the vision into reality. The national planning policies are there to provide a framework, not a straitjacket. As I have said, in the case of devolution, where there is an elected regional assembly, if it is playing that role and that is its intention, the Secretary of State would not need any regional spatial strategies anyway. Game, set and match. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As always, he is beguiling in his answers and tries to confuse the issue. He was crafty in his reply.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we do not want to keep repeating throughout Report stage that the Bill is top-down, instead of bottom-up, and that the ODPM seems to be the only planner in the country. I was grateful for the Minister's answer. There were two scenarios: one with an elected regional assembly and one without. The Minister spoke about both, and it was interesting to hear what he said about the situation if there were an elected regional assembly. Going by what he said, he should not mind at all if the words in the Bill were changed from "must set out" to "shall have regard to". He gave an answer that I could have given, so we must test the feeling of the House on the issue.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 165; Not-Contents, 123.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
	"(2A) The RSS will set the spatial framework for the strategies of the regional development agency in its region."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the issue of how the regional spatial strategy will fit and interrelate with other strategies in the region. Although our amendment makes reference only to the strategy of the regional development agency, because of the importance we attach to the relationship between spatial planning and economic planning, we are certainly not precluding ourselves from supporting the idea that the regional spatial strategy should provide the spatial framework for other regional strategies.
	The draft PPS11 states:
	"It is essential that the regional spatial strategy both shapes and is shaped by other regional strategies".
	As a bland statement of how regional strategies would relate to one another in an ideal world, this would be clear and uncontroversial. However, given that this is not the case—I think here particularly of the examples put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, when we discussed this previously—we are concerned that the Government's policy is based on little more than wishful thinking. To that extent, we are arguing for a more robust approach to this issue by the Government. By extension, we do not believe that regulations would adequately demonstrate the Government's commitment to regional spatial strategies being truly spatial frameworks.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, indicated that I supported the idea of a hierarchy of regional strategies, with the regional spatial strategy being pre-eminent. That was an understandable interpretation of my arguments, but my intention with this amendment is less concerned with establishing hierarchies than it is with bringing a bit of realism to the Government's thinking on this issue.
	Let me be clear. This is not about regional planning bodies controlling what regional development agencies can do. It is simply a question of recognising the potential for conflict between the two and ensuring that the regional spatial strategy is exactly that—regional, spatial and strategic—which it will not be if it does not set the spatial framework for the strategies of the regional development agency in its region.
	As it stands, the Bill is silent on how all these various regional strategies will relate to each other. That seems to me to be a recipe for confusion. Furthermore, regional strategies are not automatically supportive of and consistent with one another—a point, as I have said, well illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, in Committee.
	If we are to have RSSs, it is important that the different regional strategies are integrated and co-ordinated and that provision is made for this in the Bill. If it is left to guidance, the mechanism by which we can deliver joined-up policies at the regional level will remain unclear and will not be subject to proper debate in Parliament.
	The drawing-up of planning responsibilities from counties to regional planning bodies in this Bill reinforces the importance of having one overarching spatial framework at the regional level. I do not believe in the utopian vision that all the regional strategies are somehow reflecting and correlating with one another. I think that there will be more conflict than the Government believe there will be, and it is only right that the professionals on the ground know where they stand when it arises. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support this amendment, as we did in Committee. My noble friend Lady Maddock, who spoke then, referred to the draft PPS11 which states,
	"It is essential that the regional spatial strategy both shapes and is shaped by other regional strategies".
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said—and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield has referred to this—that we were seeking to put the regional spatial strategy at the top of a hierarchy. That is not so. What we are seeking to do is to set a spatial framework for other strategies which are not in themselves spatial, or not primarily spatial. He said that the regional spatial strategy—going through all this is rather like trying to say "she sells seashells"!—takes forward the regional housing strategy; that the regional transport strategy is part and parcel of the regional spatial strategy; and that, if there is an inconsistency, there will be an opportunity to iron it out. He said,
	"The documents are published; they are there for consultation. In a sense, the other regional strategies get pulled into the spatial strategy and that is the overriding driver for it".—[Official Report, 20/1/04; col. 998.]
	That, my Lords, makes the case.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the argument is a very major but a very simple one. Basically, the whole planning system is intended to see that the country and the countryside are not wrecked. Ultimately, it is the spatial strategy which must take that very long-term view. It is absolutely right that other developments do fit in with it. That is why I strongly support this amendment.
	There are plenty of examples of where there have been desirable regional goals which actually would be very harmful in the long-term interests of the country, but I will not take the time of the House listing them. I hope that, by accepting this amendment, we will be enshrining the long-term future of the countryside.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, could I take up with the Minister a question which I raised by means of a Written Question on 12 February? That is, the mismatch between the policy of the Home Office on burial law in the 21st century—which suggests that an assessment should be made of community needs every 10 years—and the draft PPS11, which provides that the regional spatial strategy should develop a strategy for the region of at least 15 years.
	In her reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said,
	"For planning purposes, the provision of land for burial is currently considered to be a local, rather than regional, land use issue".
	She also said that the consultation paper which has now been issued by the Government,
	"seeks views on whether the provision of burial grounds should be linked to the local core strategy development plan, outlined in planning policy statement 12: local development frameworks. Such plans should cover a period of at least 10 years".—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. WA 174.]
	The provision of land for burial is already a serious problem in many areas of the country, and may become more so in the future when many of the minority communities in this country want to stick to burial rather than to move towards cremation. Therefore, demographers should be able to predict what is the regional requirement for burial grounds over a period of 15 years, and that should then feed into the local development plan.
	That is a case where a regional framework is needed and where the Government's consultation paper on burial law and policy in the 21st century has got it wrong. It is not meshing correctly with the current proposals for legislation in the planning field.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have to admit that I have not come briefed on burial law, but I am pleased to note that there is a consultation paper. Therefore, this is a matter on which Ministers have not made a final decision.
	On the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about protecting the countryside, the regional spatial strategy is that under which the plan-led system protects the countryside. Anyone would think that everything had been hunky-dory up to now. I can remember looking at some figures when I was at MAFF: in a six-year period in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a quarter of the hedgerows disappeared. That changed the face of the countryside. People may say that everything has been okay up to now, the countryside has been protected and the Bill is wrecking things, but that is far from being the case.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: Is there an interest to declare, my Lords?

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, surely the Minister realises that the hedgerows disappeared because a grant was offered by MAFF for their removal.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am simply saying that the idea that everything has been hunky-dory up to now and the countryside has been protected is nonsense, as that one point shows. I deprecate that, anyway. I was talking about the late 1980s and early 1990s, by the way, when the despoliation of the countryside was obviously financed by the previous government, although I do not want to go into that. I am simply making the point that the countryside has not been protected up to now.
	I digress because, by and large, as we said in Committee, we are very supportive of the amendment. The principle expressed in it has our strong support. However, as with one or two other areas, at this point, we do not think the Bill is the right place for an imprecisely defined statement. Whether it could be refined, I do not know—I am not making any commitment.
	We think it absolutely right that the regional spatial strategy should set the spatial framework for the regional economic strategy, but this is part of a two-way process. The spatial strategy needs to be shaped by the regional economic strategy as well as shaping it. We think that the way in which the amendment is drafted implies a hierarchical relationship, with the regional spatial strategy at the top. We do not think that is the right way forward. Perhaps we are misunderstanding the purpose, but our view is that the way in which the amendment is drafted would create a hierarchical relationship.
	The regions need a joined-up approach; the regional spatial strategy and the regional economic strategy both serve a different role and function, but the one helps create the other. The relationship between the regional planning body and the regional development agency should properly be one between equals. That would not be the case if we accepted the narrow wording of the amendment. It can be a relationship in which there are different points of view reflecting the different purposes of the strategies, but that does not mean that they will necessarily contradict one another.
	It is essential is that these bodies—and, indeed, the other bodies that have to work together drawing up key regional strategies—work together to develop a shared understanding of the issues, objectives and opportunities in a particular region. It will be different in each region, as we emphasised in draft planning policy statement 11 on regional planning. This is already happening: in Yorkshire and the Humber, for example, joint stakeholder consultations events were organised by the regional planning body and the regional development agency during the recent review of both strategies.
	From a practical point of view, people on the front line are making a reality of things. We do not think we need such a provision in the Bill, as it would give a hierarchical view. The amendment is simply not needed, certainly not in its current form. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I shall reflect on his comments about the hedgerows. It is a classic example of what we are concerned about in the Bill. The Secretary of State at the time had so much power that he could remove the hedgerows. If we gave any Secretary of State as much power in this planning legislation, bizarre things might happen in the future. The Minister has given a classic example of why we are trying to change the Bill. He has made our arguments about the Secretary of State for us, and we will remind him of that throughout the remainder of the Bill's proceedings.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, you can trust this Government.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Rooker: I will give an example, my Lords. First, that happened not under this Government but under the previous one. Secondly, there are 30,000 more hectares in the green belt today than we inherited from the previous government in 1997. We need no lessons in that respect—we have a good record.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will accept that the Secretary of State at that time thought he was doing the right thing, but future generations have reflected on that. There should have been more debate about it at the time, which is what we want to ensure in this Bill. We want to make certain that no one can do anything without a good debate, considering the various points of view before arriving at any planning policies.
	I do not want to create any hierarchies—that is not the purpose of the amendment. In my own region, the potential development of Stansted airport is a tremendous economic factor in the eastern region, but it must be tied in with the planning and spatial strategies.
	The Minister seems to agree that bodies must work together to make the various strategies happen. I hope that he will reflect on this before Third Reading, as we need clarity before finalising the Bill, and that we can have a further debate on it then. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
	"(3A) The RSS must include sub-regional plans for all parts of the region in accordance with geographical boundaries defined by the RPB.
	(3B) The sub-regional plans referred to in subsection (3A) shall be prepared by the authorities falling within section 5(1) if their area or any part of their area is in the defined sub-region."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we return to a major set of amendments that are concerned with ensuring that counties and other strategic planning authorities have a stronger role to play in the planning process.
	Although I welcomed the Government's concessions in Committee on the role of county councils and other authorities, fundamentally I do not believe they have gone far enough. I think I am supported in that belief by many of your Lordships, by most interested outside organisations and by planners.
	Amendment No. 9 would put on the face of the Bill a statutory role for strategic planning authorities in the formulation of sub-regional strategies for their area. It is slightly different from Amendment No. 4, and certainly more extensive.
	Throughout our deliberations, our approach has been to attempt to make the best of a bad job. We do not believe that the proposals brought before the House in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill will improve the planning system.
	One of the main areas of concern identified in earlier stages of debate, in this House and the other place, has been the wide gap between regional spatial strategies and local development. There is a yawning void created by removing structure plans from the process. It will create a serious problem for effective sub-regional planning and the co-ordination of transport, housing and infrastructure at the sub-regional scale.
	The Government have attempted to paper over the crack by proposing that regional spatial strategies should include policies for sub-regions, but it is doubtful whether these will be sufficiently detailed to provide more than broad guidance about development strategy at the sub-regional scale. Furthermore, because they would be produced as an integral part of the regional spatial strategy, there will be a lack of flexibility about when the sub-regional policies can be updated. The fact that there will not be comprehensive coverage will leave some areas without a clear sub-regional strategy to guide development and infrastructure investment. In my own county, we have the Thames Gateway, with clear strategies—we have the developing M11 corridor, with possibly more houses to be built up the A12 than anywhere else. Clearly there will be no sub-regional strategy for these areas, and it is a recipe for chaos.
	The draft PPS11, on which the Government have been consulting, stresses that planning issues are not necessarily contained within county boundaries. The point becomes doubly evident at the district scale. There are many examples—I think particularly of some in my own country of Essex, such as Harlow, where the expansion of a largely urban district, with tightly constrained boundaries, can take place only in adjoining districts. These will not necessarily be included within the main sub-regions identified at RSS level. How will authorities plan the development of such areas in a joined-up way without some form of sub-regional planning?
	Clauses 28 and 29 provide for adjoining local authorities to produce joint local development documents and for joint committees to be established to assist that process. However, I am sceptical about how many districts will voluntarily join together to produce local development documents on a joint basis. The provisions in this Bill for joint local development documents will not plug the gap in sub-regional planning. Simply put, the proposals do not grasp the full range of sub-regional planning nor the way it is delivered on the ground.
	We have already had much debate about the way in which this Bill marginalises county councils from the planning process, despite the fact that they are responsible for the majority of local services in two-tier areas, some of which are crucial to the delivery of sustainable patterns of development—highways and transportation being the most prominent. However, the Government recognised that, and we welcome amending the old Clause 4, which is now Clause 5, to give county councils a statutory role to advise the regional planning body on the preparation of RSS, although we still believe that the Government underestimate the importance of the role of county councils in strategic planning. I am sure that we will return to this issue later today.
	I now return to the point of Amendment No. 4. The Government's amendments in Committee did not adequately address the crucial role of county councils in sub-regional planning. The purpose of this amendment is to plug the gap at sub-regional level by providing for the preparation of sub-regional plans, led by the strategic planning authorities as part of the RSS. It should not be interpreted as an attempt to reintroduce structure plans by the back door. That is not the intention. Nor would it undermine the pre-eminence of the regional spatial strategy. The procedure can be flexible and efficient and will not add another tier to the process. It would give a clear and appropriate strategic planning role to county councils and other strategic planning authorities at sub-regional level. Ultimately, from my own experience, I am absolutely positive that the amendment would help the Government's own objectives for sustainable communities—no joke.
	Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would further strengthen the strategic planning authority role. It is important to reiterate that there will be no intervening fully democratic level of planning in this country between the district level and the Secretary of State unless we have elected regional assemblies all over England. That looks extremely unlikely to happen—I hope that it does not—at least in the short term. We have an enormous structural gap in the planning system between districts and regions. Ministers must recognise that this will not tend to lead to effective planning. Perhaps they think that they will be able to continue to rely on the strategic authorities for sub-regional planning support. That is not the case. Although there is a statutory role for sub-regional planning, the reality is that many authorities will shed staff that they can no longer afford in order to fulfil the Government's requirements. That would be a disaster.
	The Minister gave us his assurance that county councils would not lose any money whatsoever, but they are losing their role in writing county structure plans, in sub-regional planning and associated responsibilities. Surely, there will be a gradual downgrading, even if it is not yet envisaged. That would be a disaster, because capacity in the planning system does not currently lie in the regional chambers or Government Offices. The strategic expertise, technical know-how and wealth of experience in strategic planning is based, not surprisingly, at strategic authority level. To disperse and get rid of that pool of expertise—which, as it currently stands, the Bill would surely do—would be a terrible waste of one of the most valuable resources in our planning system, and would hinder the Government in their objectives in delivering sustainable communities.
	I hope that the Minister will recognise that the success of sub-regional planning will be vital to achieving many of the demanding targets that the Government have set within their overarching sustainable communities policy framework. A statutory sub-regional dimension needs to be written into the Bill's provisions. As I said earlier, we doubt that the provisions for joint committees in Clauses 29 and 30 go far enough in this regard.
	The strategic planning function of county councils is a precious resource. We cannot support legislation that treats the bulk of planning expertise in this country as an afterthought to local government reorganisation. The amendments ensure several problems with the legislation are addressed. They will strengthen the effective delivery of sub-regional planning, help preserve some measure of accountability within the proposed new system in the event that Clause 1 is eventually removed from the Bill, and offer more opportunities for public involvement. They will make the system more bottom up and less top down, will mean that counties will be less handicapped in integrating their transport, waste and minerals plans and will ensure that the capacity and expertise of the existing system are not lost. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, again, we are pleased to be able to support this amendment. We tabled an amendment at the last stage that drew attention to the importance of work at a sub-regional level. Our amendment was perhaps a little less prescriptive than this one and therefore a good deal less forceful. The criticisms of that amendment were that we—the criticisms were voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, but meant to refer to all of us—could not afford to see a proliferation of plans under the guise of sub-regional strategies that are poorly integrated and serve only to create confusion and uncertainty, which I understand. The various amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, meet that criticism, both providing for sub-regional plans to be put into place and providing for how they get there. That is an important part of the programme.
	I do not think that it is necessary to weary the House by repeating arguments for the importance of a sub-regional as well as a regional approach. Common sense and noble Lords' experience in their own areas make it immediately clear that a gap or lacuna between the regional and district levels does not work well in practice. We support the amendments.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I support the group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. In Committee we probed the Government's intention to make the present RPGs into a statutory format as regional spatial strategies. If the RSS is to be mandatory as far as local authorities are concerned, it is essential that the current tiers of local government should contribute to the formulation of sub-regional planning and that this co-operation should be stipulated in the Bill. It is not good enough for the RPB to make arrangements for county councils and other nominated authorities to enable them to discharge the appropriate functions outlined in Clause 5.
	Amendment No. 9 changes the balance somewhat and makes the preparation of the RSS more inclusive for county councils and local authorities at the formulation of sub-regional plans. In the same way, it is important for the bodies mentioned in Amendment No. 10 also to have a role to play in the review and monitoring of the implementation of the RSS.
	If the regional spatial strategy is to reflect local areas correctly—the Minister has already identified that it is important that the local area is properly considered—it is vital that county councils and the other authorities nominated in Amendment No. 9 are included at an early stage of the preparation of the strategy. Therefore, the making of sub-regional plans is an integral part of the process. They will be a subset of plans for the region, but important for all that. Therefore, I support the amendments.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am a bit surprised by the tone of the speeches on this issue. I believe that I am as well briefed as I can be, but I have seen nothing from the County Councils Network, for example, to say that it was dissatisfied with the major changes that the Government proposed to the Bill at Committee stage, which have now been included. As far as I know, the Local Government Association stands by its statements welcoming wholeheartedly the changes that took place. Nobody has referred to any specific note, letter, submission or representation, and I am not aware of anything from the county councils. I do not know whether this is a private enterprise operation on behalf of the bigwigs from local government who see their role under threat—although as I have repeatedly made clear, it is not under threat—or whether there has been full consultation with the rest of local government. I do not know, as nothing has been said in the three speeches that we have just heard, whether this measure is required and desired by the county councils in addition to the measure that the Government placed in the Bill at Committee stage. I am not at all clear why the amendment has been proposed.
	I should also say, before I begin my response, that the Government are not responsible for the grouping of the amendments, and there is no way in which Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 could ever be considered consequential on Amendment No. 4. I am grateful for the wider debate, and all that, but there is no doubt about it: the new clauses in Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and Amendment No. 4 deal with totally different things.
	I shall give the Government's response, but I should be very grateful if in the future we could be told if an issue has arisen from the County Councils Network, as it would obviously help us. Frankly, we would like to know about it, as we have been trying to listen to people. This has been an issue since the Bill was published and since the Green Paper; I fully accept that. It is of key importance, and we believed that in the amendments that are now part of Clause 5 we had gone some considerable way to satisfying people—and had in fact satisfied them—on the issues that have been raised.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she did not want to put everything on the record. Indeed, we might as well just say, "Let's get to the vote", as it probably does not make a blind bit of difference what I am about to say. However, because I believe that the Government have a good case, I am determined to put the full note on the record, just for those outside this place. I feel a bit aggrieved about this proposal being introduced when there were no complaints following Committee stage.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would like me to answer that point now. As a member of the County Councils Network, I have been made aware of all the negotiations that went on for several months. As I have said repeatedly, we welcome what the Government have introduced into the Bill, but it was not what the County Councils Network wanted in the beginning—it wanted much more. I am aware of the negotiations that went on, and what the County Councils Network and the LGA started off with was far more than what is proposed in this amendment. The amendment, which I shall explain again later, is totally supported by every county and every strategic planning authority that I know. It is where we wanted the negotiations to end rather than where they have ended. I repeat: we welcome the Government's amendment, but it is not exactly what we wanted.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that I sincerely respect the role of the noble Lord in the county councils, as he is the leader of a major county council. However, he put a caveat on what he said, when he remarked that the amendment was supported by everyone he knew. In due course, I should like to know how far that goes. Is this the final frontier? Is this it, or do those outside want more? They may say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, "Well, you tried, but you didn't go far enough as far as we're concerned".
	As I have said, the Government have not received any representations in this regard, although the negotiations went on not just for months but for the best part of a year and a half. However, I shall plod on with my brief, irrespective of the consequences.
	Amendment No. 4 would require the regional spatial strategy to include sub-regional plans for all parts of the region and for these to be prepared by such county councils, metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities and national park authorities any part of whose area is covered by the sub-region. Anyone would think that sub-regional strategies did not already take place. The classic example is the south Midlands/Milton Keynes area. That has a sub-regional strategy, covering as it does several district councils, two and a half county councils and touching as it does on the boundaries of three regions. A sub-regional strategy is taking place, so there is no problem in that regard and no problem about it taking place after the Bill becomes an Act. There is not an issue over sub-regional plans.
	Regional spatial strategies will contain a new emphasis on sub-regions. As draft planning policy statement 11 makes clear, where sub-regional strategies are being drawn up, we would expect those authorities with strategic planning expertise in the area to take the lead on, or participate in, that work. However, we expect sub-regional strategies, in the sense of parts of the region having a distinct set of policies, to be the exception not the rule. Surely, that is a fair point. The whole point is to have sub-regional strategies where they are actually needed. The south Midlands/Milton Keynes example is a good one, and I have no doubt that others could be given. The Thames Gateway is another obvious example of where there is a sub-regional strategy, as again it covers three regions and two county councils, plus the GLA. Where they are needed, they can take place now and will be able to take place when the Bill is passed, but not all over the country—that is simply not needed.
	We do not want to see a proliferation of plans, under the guise of sub-regional strategies. The noble Lord said that he did not want the structure plans back, but that is the underlying theme in proposing the amendment and making the kind of speeches that we have just heard. They imply that county councils want to continue their role, so there should be three levels of plan-making. That is what we are seeking to avoid. A two-tier planning system will be much easier to understand, and the ownership of the plans will be absolutely clear and unambiguous. That is very important. Otherwise, when we are faced with a strategic policy deficit, then sub-regional strategies will be prepared to deal with the specific growth or regeneration needs of an area. The three-tier system, which is what is being proposed in the amendment—let us make no bones about that—constrained as it has been by administrative boundaries, has sometimes failed to tackle sub-regional issues that are now for the first time beginning to be looked at in the revision of regional plans. The three-city area of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby in the east Midlands is just one example.
	Amendment No. 9 is a new clause that would place a duty on county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan district councils and national park authorities to advise not only regional planning bodies but also the Secretary of State and local planning authorities about strategic planning matters. The amendment would place a duty on those authorities to formulate sub-regional planning policy and provide for them to work jointly with other authorities or the regional planning body to do so. I hope that I have covered the sub-regional issue under Amendment No. 4. I would only add that we expect local authorities to work together under arrangements with the regional planning body to formulate sub-regional strategies for their area when they are needed. That includes the county councils. There is nothing in the Bill that restricts that happening. It can happen now and it will be able to happen under the Bill when it is passed.
	We see no added value in county councils, metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities or national park authorities advising the Secretary of State on strategic planning matters as well as the regional planning body. Those authorities will make their voices heard anyway, through the regional spatial strategy revision process, and influence its outcome. It does not make sense for them to advise the Secretary of State independently of this. It would only result in more red tape, more paperwork, more cost and more bureaucracy. That is what is being proposed in the amendments—let us be quite honest and open about that.
	The unitary, metropolitan district councils and national park authorities will be local planning authorities under the Bill and would be required to advise themselves under the amendment, while the role of the county councils in advising local planning authorities is already clearly defined in draft planning policy statement 12 and the regulations. There is also the option of the county council becoming a member of a joint committee to take on the role of preparing a local development document.
	Amendment No. 10—the other new clause—would require the regional planning body to take advice from county councils, unitary authorities, the metropolitan district councils and the national park authorities on the preparation, review and monitoring of the implementation of the regional spatial strategy in relation to each region. The reappearance of this amendment is very surprising. The fact that it still refers to authorities in Clause 4(2) and not Clause 5(3) indicates that it has probably slipped through the net. It is a leftover from Committee stage. It seeks to fight old battles which the Government have in many ways accepted by our amendments in Committee. The amendment mirrors almost precisely what the amended Clause 5 already provides for. So we simply do not think it is necessary. Noble Lords have decided that the Government's concessions do not go far enough. However, as I said at the beginning, by no stretch of the imagination are Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 directly consequential on Amendment No. 4.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I think that everyone now accepts that we will have reasonable spatial strategies with planning policy being done at regional level. As the leader of Essex County Council, I am very much involved in the issue on a daily basis and, like the Minister, I want the system to work. If we are going to have an eastern regional policy, I want it to work.
	I do not like to give examples from my own county. However, as I said in my initial remarks, Essex has both the A12 corridor and heavy congestion in Chelmsford. We are trying to establish a park and ride system in Chelmsford which involves several district councils and the development of the A12. It is not a matter for the regional spatial strategy but will involve several districts and Essex County Council. We are trying to ensure that the Bill provides the capacity to create sub-regional planning policies and the strategies to deliver. The county council has just completed the biggest single PFI road project, on the A130 from Southend to Chelmsford. That is of no interest at all to Norfolk, Peterborough, Suffolk and Cambridge. The new system will have to provide the capacity to deliver such developments.
	I am sad that the Minister thinks we are trying to handicap such a capacity. We are trying to improve the situation by enabling the new regional system to deliver such developments. We accept that that is going to happen, and we are trying to make it work. Earlier, I quoted the example of Harlow, which, if it is to expand, will have to expand into other districts. That case might involve a UDC because it concerns the M11 corridor. I could cite other parts of Essex, such as Haven Gateway, from where the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, originates, which is one of the most deprived areas in our county. I have a lot of time for that area. We need a strategy for it, but it is not covered by a government initiative.
	If we are going to improve our communities, the new legislation will have to provide the capacity to deliver it. These regions are very big and will not be interested in the matters I have mentioned—projects such as park and ride schemes covering several districts and roads joining one town to another. I am trying to be helpful and to make the system work. I see the whole system failing because a two-tier system—from the top of the region to the district—will not work. There needs to be capacity in the middle to deliver the Government's objectives. I am trying to help them do that in the Thames Gateway, the M11 corridor, and at Stansted airport. I am trying to make the new system work. I think that this provision must be on the face of the Bill. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 160; Not-Contents, 108.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 1, line 16, at end insert "unless the conflict concerns a matter of fact in which case the fact shall prevail"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 5, grouped with Amendment No. 65, relates to the same point with regard to the regional spatial strategy and the local development document. This new point occurred to me on re-reading the Bill after the last stage. In both relevant clauses there is a provision that,
	"if to any extent a policy set out in the RSS"—
	or the local development document—
	"conflicts with any other statement or information in the RSS the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy".
	I have no quarrel with the general proposition. However, if the statement—or "information" to use the word in the subsection—is a matter of fact, then the fact should prevail rather than policy if policy is based on an incorrect fact. That is the thrust of Amendments Nos. 5 and 65. If the conflict concerns a matter of fact, the fact shall prevail. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness, I come to the conclusion almost that it is an amendment in search of a problem. I am not sure I understand the aims of the noble Baroness. I should be interested to hear some examples. I cannot see how a policy will conflict with a fact as they are two different beasts.
	The relevant provisions—Clauses 2(4) and 17(5)—make clear that statements of policy in the regional spatial strategy or local development documents have precedence over background material. We probably all agree with that as a principle. The reference in the Bill is to avoid wrangling about the precedence of different paragraphs.
	The amendments seem to imply that policies will be drawn up in complete contradiction to "facts" contained in the regional spatial strategy or the local development document. I cannot see how that would happen. Policies have to be based on evidence. That is one criterion for soundness. A policy divorced from the facts would not survive the examination.
	The draft regulations on local and regional planning both draw a distinction between the policy and the reasoned justification for it. This is intended to make clear the policy matters which would provide the framework for development control decisions; and to make sure that the local development document has some explanation of and justification for the policy.
	The draft guidance says that the reasoned justification is kept to the minimum necessary to provide the context. In a situation where there was some issue with a fact, it would be given weight as a material consideration. We cannot, of course, fetter the Secretary of State's discretion by saying that this will always be the case but it seems likely that the fact would outweigh the policy. I suggest that it would be irrational for a policy to prevail if it were based upon a proven inaccuracy and would be open, therefore, to challenge.
	For those reasons, I do not think that the amendment works or is necessary. Having heard my remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect further and agree to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall read the Minister's remarks. However, he seems to be saying that the Secretary of State should not be fettered even if he got it wrong. All I seek is to ensure that there is no elephant trap in this part of the Bill. If the Government do not consider the amendment necessary, I shall not pursue the matter. However, I was apparently opaque in my introduction. The "information" which might be in conflict with a policy would be based on fact. It could contain—no one is perfect, not even the people in the ODPM who have written the RPG—something which purports to be true but is not.
	In his reply the Minister said that the matter could be sorted out—that is obviously comforting—and that it could be dealt with at an examination in public. However, the long and the short of it is that I am trying to help. I am not trying to undermine what the Government are trying to do here. If they are content that there is no problem, I do not want to push the matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the aim of Amendment No. 6 is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make the existing regional planning guidance, or parts of it, part of the regional spatial strategy and so part of the development plan without going through the procedures outlined in Part 1 of the Bill. The removal of Clause 2(6) is consequential.
	We had an extensive discussion about this issue in Committee and since then some or most of us may have seen the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, detailing the way in which RPG will be transmogrified into RSS. However, we believe that if the regional planning body is to become responsible for ensuring the regional spatial strategy is issued, implemented, monitored and eventually revised, it must have considerable input in the preparation of the initial RSS. The Bill before us should reflect that principle.
	The issue is more than symbolic. At the heart of it, and as the Bill stands, we have the Government saying that in order to prevent a vacuum in regional planning arising in the transitional period, the Secretary of State will convert so much of the regional planning guidance into the regional spatial strategy. We do not wish to underestimate the importance of that argument. It is important for local plans and communities to have a strategic context within which they operate. However, we do not believe that the Government have sufficiently justified the distinction that is drawn in the Bill between the Secretary of State deciding what will be in the initial regional spatial strategy and the rigorous procedures to be followed by the regional planning body when revising the RSS. We believe that the consultation process for RPG is inadequate.
	I should like to move on to the related amendments. The Bill contains a procedure for the preparation of revisions to the regional spatial strategy. Clauses 6 to 12 assume that there is a regional spatial strategy and that the responsibility of a regional planning body is to prepare a draft revision. However, a procedure for adopting a regional spatial strategy is also necessary for two reasons—one is practical, the other is one of principle. The practical reason is that the Bill does not put in place a regional spatial strategy by some other means. Under Clause 2(1) there is to be a regional spatial strategy. However, there is merely a power to make regional planning guidance the regional spatial strategy for a region in Clause 2(5). Even if that power remains, it will not necessarily be exercised. Furthermore, the existing regional planning guidance may be inappropriate as a regional spatial strategy. A regional spatial strategy is, after all, different. The Government intend it to be part of the development plan. They intend more weight to be attached to it and they intend local development plan documents to be in general conformity with it. The draft planning policy statement 11 on regional planning says that these documents are intended to be more specific. Therefore, there needs to be a procedure to create a regional spatial strategy from scratch.
	The point of principle is that regions should be involved in preparing the regional spatial strategy. There is a clear procedure for revisions: regional planning bodies prepare draft revisions, a sustainability appraisal takes place, an examination in public can and usually would be held, the Secretary of State has to consider the report of the panel and can make changes to the draft revision, giving reasons if he does so.
	If the procedures are necessary for revisions, they will be even more necessary for the preparation of a regional spatial strategy. The absence of proper open, democratic and fair procedures for the preparation of regional spatial strategies cannot be justified by administrative convenience.
	Amendment No. 19 assumes that Clause 2(5)—allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe that part of existing regional planning guidance is the regional spatial strategy—remains, but caters for the possibility that it is not exercised. Amendment No. 20 would apply if Clause 2(5) were removed from the Bill. Without these amendments there is a lacuna right at the beginning of the Bill, which represents a serious democratic and procedural deficit.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 42. This amendment seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to apply part of regional planning guidance as a revision of the RSS. Surely if regional spatial strategies come into force, regional planning guidance will no longer apply. If that is the case, why does the Bill make provision for such a retrograde power?
	Although, as my previous amendments have shown, we oppose the process, we can follow the logic as regards the provisions in Clause 2 with regard to the adoption of parts of regional planning guidance as the regional spatial strategy for a region.
	Clause 10(8) allows for the Secretary of State to provide for a completed process of regional planning guidance that corresponds to one that needs to be done for a regional spatial strategy to have effect as a revision of the RSS. It does not make sense that the two processes are occurring in parallel. Either we have regional planning guidance or we have regional spatial strategies. With this subsection and those that I have just dealt with in Clause 2, we have the situation where the Secretary of State decides what is in the first RSS and also what can be a revision to it. That is a top down, nationalised planning system, as we have said before.
	What is the status of the regional planning guidance once the regional spatial strategy is in place? Unless the Government are planning on updating regional planning guidance even after we have regional spatial strategies I should have thought that this would be an unwise and backward looking step.
	I am also concerned that this provision allows the Secretary of State to bypass the procedures in place that hold regional planning bodies accountable, including examinations in public. That is particularly worrying. We have said a lot already about the democratic deficit, so I shall not detain the House on this point. However, I wanted to register my concern.
	Nevertheless, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, reassured noble Lords that subsections (7) and (8) are meant to apply only during the early transition period when RSSs come into force. Could this not be made clear on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, helpfully suggested? I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 21, which is included in the group of amendments that we are discussing, stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Maddock. As we know, regional planning guidance morphs, or, as the noble Lord said, transmogrifies into the regional spatial strategy. However, I am not sure that that is quite accurate as what changes to start with is the title and not the substance.
	I go off at a slight tangent to say that the noble Lord referred to a letter from the Minister. I have copies of two or three letters but I do not think that I have one of that particular letter. I may be missing something in terms of explanation from the Government but I shall check with the Minister's office tomorrow that I have everything that has been sent out.
	Under the Bill the duty of the regional planning body is to revise what started life as the Secretary of State's regional planning guidance. Therefore, it seems to me that it will always be at heart the Secretary of State's guidance or strategy. The amendment suggests a way of giving ownership—to use the term again—of the first major piece of work, the regional spatial strategy, to the regional planning body. I have provided that rather than requiring it to undertake a revision, it should replace what it inherits and put in place a regional spatial strategy which, as I say, would be its own. The drafting is a little inelegant. I have words in parenthesis by way of definition simply to avoid a great many amendments that would otherwise be required to other parts of the Bill if I were to be totally consistent. The Minister will gather from that that I do not intend to press the measure today. However, it is a point at least worth putting on the record.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to see Amendment No. 6, but it goes to the heart of our purpose. The consequences of this group of amendments would be extremely wasteful. Those people outside the House, working in the field, would be extremely annoyed if the amendments were passed. They are designed to ensure that the first regional spatial strategies are prepared by the regional planning board rather than converted from the regional planning guidance; and to rule out any work on revisions to regional planning guidance being carried forward under the new system. We do not see a case for that change either in principle or practice.
	It is worth repeating that every regional planning guidance that is to become a regional spatial strategy has been prepared in draft by the regional planning body. There has been extensive consultation and examination in public on each. When the Secretary of State has proposed to make changes to the regional planning body's draft he has consulted on those changes. That regional planning guidance is eminently qualified to become the first regional spatial strategy. We have made clear that regional planning guidance that has not been through an examination in public will not become a regional spatial strategy—that is RPGs 3 for London, 3a for strategic views in London, 3b and 9b for the River Thames and 9a for the Thames Gateway.
	Scrapping those documents that have already been prepared would not benefit our regions or communities. Perhaps that is part of a plot. It would take at least two years to prepare a regional spatial strategy from scratch. During that interval there would be no regional policies. There would be no framework in which planning could take place, with massive uncertainty and the risk of conflict between one area and the next.
	I fully accept that the first regional spatial strategies will be of differing ages and we expect them all to be revised over the next few years. A duty to prepare revisions, rather than starting with a blank sheet, will not mean that regional planning bodies have less freedom to come up with policies for their regions. I hope I made that clear in my comments on previous amendments. A revision could be radical, taking in every aspect of the strategy, or it could be more limited—for example to reflect a change in national policy on a specific issue.
	As I said in Committee, in every region outside London work is continuing to revise all or part of the RPG. In some regions such as the south-west that work is at an early stage. In others, the revision is nearly complete. For example in the west Midlands, the Secretary of State's proposed changes to the draft revision of the RPG have been published. The final document is due to be published in the summer.
	Amendment No. 42 would mean that all the time and resources put in by the regional planning bodies, those who had participated in consultation and the examination in public would all have been wasted. That is what would happen if the amendments were accepted. I thought that in Committee—and we are talking about a transitional process—this was accepted as a way forward. It probably took a while for the penny to drop, as I was questioned by colleagues in the House, but I though that that was our plan; namely, to move from one system to another by converting the existing guidance into the regional spatial strategies.
	There has been concern that people might not recognise that the mechanism can be used only for the transition—this is the beginning and is a one-off. The point is that the Bill is structured so that, from commencement, the regional planning body and the Secretary of State will have duties relating to the regional spatial strategy. In effect, the Bill abolishes regional planning guidance—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and I hope that it answers one of his questions.
	It follows that it is the steps in relation to the preparation of regional planning guidance that have been taken before the commencement that could be treated as steps in connection with preparing regional spatial strategy. We fully expect the Secretary of State to use the power to prescribe that most regional planning guidance will become regional spatial strategy. The Bill effects that from commencement of the part which establishes regional spatial strategies. Once the regional planning guidance no longer exists there will be no further opportunity for work to be done on it and, therefore, no opportunity for it to count as a step in the preparation and publication of the revision of the regional spatial strategy.
	I sincerely hope that that was a practical and reasonable explanation of the consequences of the amendments and why we would be mortified if they were put into the Bill. Imagine the waste of effort—I would not like to be the Minister or the Shadow Minister who had to go around the country explaining why people had just wasted a couple of years of their time. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would follow the footsteps of his new party leader who was in the west Midlands the other day—a key area for the next general election. He just wants to tear up everything that they have proposed, just at the end of the process into which they have put all their work and effort. All the people who contributed in public evidence are virtually being told, "Well, nothing you did or said has counted". That would leave the region without any regional strategy for two years, because the process would have to start all over again. That cannot be a practical proposition and I do not believe that noble Lords will push the matter; indeed, the noble Baroness said that she would not do so in any event.
	I shall repeat my earlier comments that, while the grouping is not for the Government, Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and Amendment No. 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are not consequential on Amendment No. 6. I hope that all the amendments will be withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I had not understood that the amendments needed to be consequential to be grouped. As he said, mine was not consequential. Could the Minister clarify his comments? At the beginning of his reply he talked about the work on the regional planning guidance having been done in conjunction with the regional planning bodies. As they do not yet exist, will he confirm that he means the regional chambers, which are now in most cases called regional assemblies? We need to know precisely what he is referring to.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, no—I hope I am right. As far as I know, the chambers are the regional planning bodies. The conversion was such that the chambers now carry out the function of regional planning bodies. They will have had a role in the work that has been taking place to date. I accept that those who have existed for a long time—a couple of years—may have pre-dated part of that, but the bodies have been involved ever since. As I understand it, the regional chambers or assemblies became the regional planning bodies in April last year.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. We do not wish to create a vacuum. We are concerned about the regional planning guidance being merely transferred into the regional spatial strategy. While there have been examinations in public and much work has been done in some areas—and I accept the point about the west Midlands being further ahead than other areas—we are still concerned that there is not the same rigid scrutiny in developing the first RSS, which will then be revised. That is our point. The Government are changing the regional planning guidance into the regional spatial strategy, which only then can be revised. We would have liked more input, scrutiny and work done on the original RSS.
	Noone wishes to create vacuums. However, this is an area that will need continued examination before the passage of the Bill is completed, to make certain that in the first RSSs there is sufficient scrutiny and involvement in their creation. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment today.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 [RPB: general functions]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 2, line 19, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, this amendment would remove the duty on regional planning bodies to prepare an annual report for the Secretary of State on the implementation of the regional spatial strategy. In an earlier reply, the Minister talked about bureaucracy, paper and many other things, and that is the point of this amendment.
	We do not believe that the amendment would somehow sabotage the important process of reviewing and monitoring the implementation of the regional spatial strategy. We accept that a regional planning body should be monitoring and that it should, if necessary, be in a position to report on how a regional spatial strategy is being implemented. Subsections (2) and (3) of this clause more than satisfactorily make provision for that.
	As the Bill stands, Part 1 applies only where elected regional assemblies are established. I recall that, in the context of another debate, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that in such a scenario the RSS would not set out the Secretary of State's policies but the policies of the region. That has been repeated today. Presumably the same logic applies to any reporting structure. Therefore, RPBs should, in effect, report to their constituents rather than to the Secretary of State.
	Leaving that matter aside, our main objection to subsections (4) and (5) is that they would entail an unnecessary and expensive burden on a regional planning body. The annual report will be one more bureaucratic box-ticking exercise and one more distraction from overseeing the implementation of the RSS.
	Reporting requirements may seem to be a fairly standard item in new legislation but very often the importance attached to them distorts priorities and undermines their achievement. Limited resources and manpower must be diverted to keep up with the insatiable demands of government.
	As I have already mentioned, subsections (2) and (3) more than sufficiently cater for the statutory duties of a regional planning body. Furthermore, the regional planning body should have the autonomy to decide when and how it reports to central government. The Secretary of State has so many reserve powers that I am sure that would not inconvenience him too much. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I think I have a good answer to this one. The requirements in the Bill and the regulations do not pose a new burden and therefore everything that we have just heard does not apply. Every regional planning body has submitted an annual monitoring report or statement for 2002–03, either in draft or final form, covering almost the same ground as they would be required to cover in future under the Bill and the draft regulations.
	Therefore, the requirements in the Bill and the regulations are not a new burden. We are enshrining good practice—for example, by specifying that the regional planning body must report on problems and possible solutions as well as providing data. The better annual monitoring reports—I do not want to single out any boards—already do that. In addition, we want a common timetable so that timescales can be properly compared. The regions themselves, as well as other people with an interest in this matter, would want that. I repeat: this is not a new burden; we are trying to enshrine good practice in the Bill.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I accept what the Minister says, although I should have liked him to deal with the point that I raised concerning the duty being one of informing the constituents of a region rather than the Secretary of State about what the regional planning body was doing. As the Minister said, there is no new burden, but I should still have liked the line of communication to be downwards to the people of a region rather than always being upwards to the Secretary of State. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 2, line 26, leave out "must" and insert "may"

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to moderate the Bill's language. As it stands, this subsection places a duty on regional planning bodies to give advice to other bodies if they believe that will aid the fulfilment of the regional spatial strategy.
	In Committee, we touched upon this matter briefly and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that he was happy at all times to look at the language of our legislation. Therefore, we return to this subsection now because the language matters. By definition, the word "must" is prescriptive and we should like the Government to be less prescriptive regarding what the regional planning body does. On the other hand, the word "may" gives the regional planning body choices.
	The word "must" seems to put the onus on the regional planning body to second-guess who would want or need advice. That would lead to the planning body constantly having to identify any new organisations to which to give advice. That would add considerably to their workload as there would also have to be some kind of protocol or process to determine what type of advice should be given to what kind of organisation. Should the advice be unsolicited? Do they have any powers of enforcement if the advice is not taken up?
	Therefore, we suggest that it would be more desirable to permit regional planning bodies to tender advice. That would enable a far better working relationship between all the parties involved. The word "may" fits much better with the rest of the wording and with the substantive context. As a symbol of trying to inject some discretion and autonomy into the Bill, I beg to move.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 18, which is grouped with Amendment No. 8. The purpose of Amendment No. 18 is to ensure that all district councils are consulted and informed about the activities of the regional planning body. The provision of housing will be a very important element of the regional spatial strategy. The district authorities are the housing authorities, and the directly elected district councillors will draw up local housing strategies.
	Given the importance which I believe we all attach to the provision of more affordable housing—I know that the Government are putting much energy into that—it seems to me absolutely vital that we do not lose this link in the new planning arrangements. I hope that, even if the Minister does not consider this to be the appropriate way in which to put the provision into the Bill, he will accept that it is very important, particularly in relation to housing. This is the one thing which I believe slips through the net in the Government's arrangements here, and I hope that the Minister will understand the point that I am trying to make in my amendment.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Bill and the associated regulations and guidance try to strike a balance between requiring the regional planning body to involve and consult others where that would add value while avoiding the construction of an empty consultation apparatus that benefits no one. Our view is that the two amendments fall either side of that line.
	I believe that I can dispose of Amendment No. 8 by saying that we consider the concern about the word currently in the Bill to be unfounded. The regional planning bodies have not said that it will create any difficulties for them. I should have thought that, that being the case, together with the fact that they are operating out there now, it would be better to leave the matter alone.
	Amendment No. 18 would require the regional planning body to keep informed and consult all district councils in two-tier areas in its region. We do not consider that to be sensible. It runs the risk of creating additional bureaucracy, which achieves very little beyond what the existing arrangements provide for. Indeed, it is a more onerous requirement than that placed on county councils at present.
	Through their membership of the regional planning body, many district council representatives will be taking part in the key decisions that are made as the draft regional spatial strategy emerges. The draft regulations in Part 1 of the Bill already make district councils statutory consultees both before and after the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy is published. Therefore, the regional planning bodies will be able to enter into arrangements with district councils under Clause 5(4) of the Bill to undertake work on their behalf.
	The district councils will, through their service delivery responsibilities, be key players in implementing the policies in the regional spatial strategy, particularly, as the noble Baroness said, in relation to housing. The regional planning body will be very wise and will need to maintain a dialogue with district councils if that is to be achieved. That is why we believe that both amendments fall either side of the line that I drew at the beginning and, therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not proceed with them.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thought that the Minister might be able to give a little on this amendment but obviously he cannot do so. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
	Clause 5 [Assistance from certain local authorities]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) The RPB must publish its response to advice given in accordance with subsection (2) and in the case of any advice which it does not accept in full must not proceed before a period of four months from publication has elapsed during which period the RPB and the authority shall discuss the matter."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this amendment builds on the amendment moved by the Government in Committee, which provides a role for county and unitary authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said earlier today that, although those amendments were welcome, they only go so far. They provide for the regional planning body to seek the advice of county and unitary authorities in its region. The term "seek advice" differs from "consult". "Consult" has an element of listening to advice, even if it will be disregarded and discarded. One of the characteristics it should have is feedback to the points that have been made during the consultation. So thinking about how the seeking of advice would work, I want to be absolutely certain that the regional planning body would do something with the advice. My amendment proposes that the RPB publishes its response to that advice and, where it does not accept the advice, it does not go ahead until there has been a period—four months may or may not be the right period—so that the regional planning body and the authority in question can discuss the matter on which the regional planning body does not take the advice of the county or the unitary authority. I hope that that is clear. It is intended to add a very important step to the process, to add flesh to the amendment that the Government proposed and your Lordships accepted in Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we support this amendment. We discussed the relevant government amendments in Committee. I shall repeat that they were welcome, but they did not go as far as the LGA would have liked initially. It should, of course, have commented before but the LGA and the County Councils Network forgot the processes that the House of Lords goes through before a Bill is completed. They did not realise that there is a second democratic process and that it would all be debated further. They are aware of that now.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, adds some transparency to the amendment that the Government tabled in Committee. I hope that, in a spirit of taking matters forward, the Government will be able to accept this. It makes some sense with their initial amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the thinking and the spirit behind this amendment. However, I have come to the conclusion that it is overly prescriptive. I feel that if the noble Lord and the noble Baroness were looking at this just from a local government point of view, they would probably think that this is not user-friendly but an onerous, unwieldy and bureaucratic burden.
	The amendment creates a requirement on the regional planning body to publish its response to all the advice it receives from those bodies with a statutory advice-giving function under Clause 5. If it does not accept any of that advice in full then it must not proceed until after four months have elapsed. During this period the regional planning body and the authority must discuss the matter.
	An amendment of this kind has serious practical consequences. In our view, it would drain time and resources and would not add to an effective planning system at regional level. The regional planning body will receive and consider vast volumes of advice from county councils, metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities, national park authorities and so on as it prepares draft revisions of the regional spatial strategy, keeps it under review and monitors its implementation.
	Not all those pieces of advice will be consistent with each another. What one county council thinks should happen in respect, say, of a hierarchy of town centres for retail development may be at odds with what the neighbouring county council thinks should happen. Two districts with retail centres that are in need of freshening up might enter into a friendly dispute through the regional planning process. I can think of several cases in my experience where exactly that might happen. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, with his vast experience at county council level in Essex would think it very strange if he agreed with his colleagues in Suffolk or Norfolk. The viewpoints may be valid, but they are going to provide conflicting advice. The role of the regional planning body is to weigh up the differing advice it receives and to make a balanced judgment based on all of it.
	It cannot be sensible for the regional planning body to publish a response to every single piece of advice that it receives. It would be hugely resource-intensive. Advice will often be better considered in the round rather than on a case-by-case basis. If the regional planning body has to hold up the revision of the regional spatial strategy for four months each time that it does not accept in full a piece of advice that it receives, it could take for ever to get agreement or to get to the stage of an examination in public. I do not think that that is in keeping with the aspiration, which I think that we have all shared during the course of the Bill, of ensuring that plans are up to date.
	The regional planning body is in the lead in preparing the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. It must make judgments between competing viewpoints and not try to accommodate every piece of advice that it receives. The regional planning body will be answerable for the content of the draft regional spatial strategy at the examination in public.
	When the regional planning body submits the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy to the Secretary of State, it must also submit a statement setting out who it has consulted, how it has consulted them, the main issues raised and how these have been addressed in the draft revision. The decisions that the regional planning body has made, based on the advice that it has received, will be open to scrutiny.
	The regional planning body cannot simply ignore the advice that it receives. Both the regional planning body receiving the advice and the authorities providing that advice are under an overriding duty to act reasonably. If the regional planning body fails to take proper account of the advice given to it by county councils and other councils—district, parish or town—or national parks and so on, it could ultimately be subject to a legal challenge for failing to act reasonably in the circumstances.
	We argue that the accountability and transparency is there. We do not think that this is a helpful additional extra burden. We think that it will slow the process down. The purpose of this legislation, in part, is to ensure that we have a planning system that is transparent, fair, effective and efficient in its operation. We do not think that this amendment guides us in that general direction. I hope that, having heard that and in view of the reasonable way in which we expect the planning body to work, the noble Baroness will happily withdraw her amendment this afternoon.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this is one of those occasions when the Minister has really convinced me of the rightness of my argument.
	I am not sure that I have managed to get everything down. He said that the amendment is overly prescriptive and a burden; I could have been much more prescriptive. He said that it would be a drain on time and resources; I shall discuss resources later. He said that it would be a drain on time; is four months so much time in the context of work that is setting the strategy for a region, on which the local development documents will be based and which will affect major planning decisions for the region? It seems to me that four months is not a great deal of time and is certainly not in the disaster area, which seemed to be suggested.
	The regional planning body will receive a lot of advice from the authorities, which will be inconsistent. Surely that supports and, indeed, makes much stronger the case for responding publicly. There is much less need to explain in a transparent fashion why you are not following advice if the advice is consistent, unless you are ignoring all of it. The role of the regional planning bodies is to weigh up and make a balanced judgment, but they should do so in a public fashion. The Minister said that they cannot ignore the advice.
	I appreciate that this is Report stage, so perhaps this needs to be pursued afterwards, but as he spoke it occurred to me to ask how the public and the county and unitary authorities will know how the advice has been considered and weighed against other advice. Will that be by public document, which will go to the regional planning body and is subject to the current local government access to information arrangements? I realise that that is something which perhaps I should know. Given the new freedom of information provisions which will shortly come into force, it may be that the situation will change in any event. All of this needs to be public. It is a matter of public interest.
	The regional planning body will be answerable at the examination in public. It seems to me that what I suggest would help rather than hinder the EIP. I thought that the Minister was going to say that the regional planning body would be answerable to the Secretary of State.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness may be missing the point I made. The regional planning body has to submit its statement to the Secretary of State. It will be clear from that with whom it has consulted and how it has consulted, and the documents will be open to scrutiny. I do not see that that will be a closed process. I am not sure what it is that the noble Baroness seeks that is not already there.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it may be open to scrutiny and examination when it is too late to do anything about it, although that did not seem to be the thrust of what the Minister said when he referred to the examination in public.
	Finally, the Minister is concerned that if there were tiny differences, every piece of advice would need to be set out in full. It is quite normal and usually adequate, provided that the job is done fairly thoroughly and conscientiously, for reports in response to consultations to state, "On such and such an issue there have been concerns about the following, which fall into the following categories" and to set out the competing arguments. I do not think that what I suggest goes quite as far as the Minister's response seemed to assume.
	This is an important point and clearly there is a difference between us. For that reason, and because of the access to information point which occurred to me as we were debating this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but it is something to which we may want to return.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 11A:
	Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) The authority may give the RPB advice as to the exercise of the function on matters not covered under section 5(2) but which relate to the area that is covered by the authority."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that this amendment was tabled late. It was composed early but got lost in the system.
	The amendment takes us back to a point which I raised in Committee, which is to be certain that in giving advice under the Government's new provisions in Clause 5 the authority has the power to do so. The Minister stated:
	"On the vires, my advice from a legal assessment is that it would be perfectly all right and there should not be any problems".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. 1155.]
	I have only just noticed that attached to the notes I had on the last occasion are some unfamiliar pages with a sticker attached stating, "Brief, Lord Rooker". I do not think they cover this point. I doubt that there is anything there that did not appear in Hansard.
	I am pushing the point in the hope that we can get a rather fuller response than, "It's okay, don't bother". The counties and unitaries are required to give the regional planning body advice as to the exercise of the regional planning body's function to the extent that the exercise of its function is capable of affecting the exercise by the authority, county or unitary, of any function that it has; in other words, the exercise of the authority's function.
	I asked in Committee what were the functions in question and whether, indeed, they could be spelt out in a fuller way so that there is no doubt that the counties and unitaries have the power to give advice, which is distinct from the duty under the Bill. I apologise for being rather technical on this point but I said before that we are concerned that there should not be elephant traps here. It would be very helpful to have something fuller than the single sentence that we heard last time round. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall try to give a fuller explanation and perhaps that will comfort her more.
	The amendment would provide a power for county councils to give advice on matters not caught by Clause 5(2) but which relate to the county council's area. The noble Baroness said in Committee that she was concerned about the reference to the functions of county councils in Clause 5(2) or the functions of other authorities in Clause 5(3), and that the worry was that some might see this provision as restricting the advice the authorities could give.
	I shall try again to reassure her. The trigger for the county council or any other authority to have to give advice is that one of its functions is directly or indirectly affected. I think that that is a fairly wide definition. Off the top of my head I cannot think of an example where the authority would have no duty to give advice on a matter that affected its area.
	It is important that we refer to the functions of the authority not its area because the latter would be too restrictive. The exercise of an authority's functions may be affected by proposals in an emerging regional spatial strategy relating to areas beyond the authority boundary. For example, the provision of new housing on one side of the boundary would in all likelihood have implications for schools and transport on the other. We do not want the asking for and the giving of advice to be restricted by narrow geographical provisions in those sorts of circumstances. So, if that example gives a flavour of how we see this issue, I hope that it is helpful.
	Clause 5(2) is a broad provision. Having explained how we see it working, I hope that the noble Baroness will see that there is no need for Amendment No. 11A. We are trying to be helpful; we see the point she makes; and we think that our definition is broad enough to capture the issues and concerns to which she alluded.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall read what he said. In case there is any dispute in the future, it is obviously important to have the matter on the record. I have to say that a provision with even more chapter and verse than this would have been welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bridges: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
	"(e) an area of outstanding natural beauty conservation board created under section 86 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37) (establishment of conservation boards)"

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 12 standing in my name. I feel that I owe the House an apology for the rather tortuous course I have pursued on this matter and should give an explanation on what I have been trying to do.
	As I may have to make some rather severe remarks towards the end of my intervention, I should perhaps explain where I come from in the form of a declaration of interests. I live in the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. On retiring from public service in 1987, I had the good fortune to be made a member of the regional committee of the National Trust for East Anglia, where I spent nine fascinating years. I am now a vice-president of the Council for National Parks. My main activity, and that of my wife, is to be the Suffolk branch of the CPRE, of which she is a vice-president and the planning member for the county. I operate in a very auxiliary role in that connection.
	When I tabled an amendment in Committee, I was principally concerned with the difficulty of getting the conservation boards in the AONBs to act in a coherent way. When these boards were first set up under the CROW Act, it was difficult for the county councils to find the time and money for the meetings and the places to hold them. If that was difficult for us, it was much more difficult for other AONBs where the number of local authorities represented on their conservation boards was numerous. I recently counted these. I found that in three areas of outstanding natural beauty there were no fewer than 12 local authorities. As a matter of interest, they were the Kentish towns, the High Weald and the Cotswolds. That was the purpose of my amendment. I have since discovered that things are working much better.
	However, my amendment was not well expressed; my speech was clearly not well understood; and I noticed when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rose to reply, that the text from which he was reading assumed I was aiming at something much wider; namely, for the magnification of the local planning authority's role in this new planning system. That was not my intention.
	So I drafted a different amendment, which I thought I had tabled by fax to the Public Bill Office on Saturday. It restated the principles on which the legal status of protected landscapes operate; that is, in a national park, the national park authority is responsible and in the AONBs it is the conservation board's duty to advise the new regional authorities being set up how that should operate.
	By some strange method in the transmission a gremlin got into my fax. The result is the amendment on the Marshalled List, which is not particularly relevant to my purpose. My aim is that the protected status of these areas of special landscape interest should be preserved. There have been some rather disquieting developments, to which I shall refer.
	I begin with a general word of caution. The Bill will make far-reaching changes to the planning system, extending into the distant future. The novelty is the new regional planning authority and the huge responsibilities that it will have. Sometimes, the authority may be inclined to give priority to other aspects of policy, such as employment or the growth of tourism, and the protection of landscape may seem of lesser importance.
	We have recently had an experience in west Wales which has heightened my concerns. It was intended to build a large tourism centre extending from rural Pembrokeshire into the Pembrokeshire National Park. The matter came before the National Park Authority for it to reach a decision. It decided that it could not approve this permission. It had hoped its decision was final, but this turns out to be a matter of devolved responsibility in Wales. So it was taken to Cardiff and Cardiff voted it through. I am concerned that this problem might be replicated elsewhere.
	My concerns are heightened on reading an official press release from Defra issued in the name of Mr Alun Michael, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The headline is, "'Conservation Is Not Enough'—Minister Sets Out Living Community's Challenge For National Parks". It gives a full text of what the Minister said, including that,
	"conservation of itself is not enough; we want a living countryside",
	and so on.
	It occurred to me that it would be right to look up the text of the existing legislation both for the national parks and for the AONBs. I shall confine myself to the national park test, which is to be found in the Environment Act 1995. Section 62(1) states:
	"In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in . . . this Act and, if it appears"—
	this is important—
	"that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park".
	The next paragraph reads:
	"For the purposes of this section . . . 'authority' means—
	(a) any Minister of the Crown, (b) any public body, (c) any statutory undertaker, or (d) any person holding public office". So, it would seem that the Minister, Mr Michael, has transgressed as regards the terms of the Act in our statute book.
	I suggest to your Lordships that there is a fundamental problem; namely, how should these specially protected landscapes function in this new scheme? If the Government wish to change the protection that they now enjoy, the sensible thing would be for them to introduce an amendment to the Act which I have just quoted rather than to issue policy planning guidance that appears to transgress it at the edges.
	I regret having to make that criticism of the Government because both noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Bassam, have been extremely kind and helpful to me. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, wrote a very nice letter on the remarks I made at the last stage. However, I feel that the issue is of some seriousness and that we should address it head-on. I do not intend to call a Division today as I think that further reflection is required and other noble Lords might be interested in taking part in the debate. But this is a significant matter which we should not overlook.
	Of course, as a former civil servant, it would be possible for me to go so far as to advise the noble Lord how he might reply to this intervention. I think that the first thing a civil servant would say is, "Well, you have raised an entirely hypothetical question. Get lost. It's not real". The example I have quoted suggests to me that this is not a hypothetical question. We have an example and we should make up our minds about the matter. We need to consider the issue further and I shall be very interested to hear what other noble Lords and the Minister have to say. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will see whether I can get further and better particulars to answer for Defra because I am not fully up to speed on that, although I take the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has spoken to his amendment. I shall start by giving him the modern-day Civil Service version in reply to his amendment, which I suspect is probably no different to his day.
	The amendment would add area of outstanding natural beauty conservation boards to the list of authorities in Clause 5(3) of the Bill with a statutory advice-giving role on the review, monitoring and preparation.
	The authorities in Clause 5(3) are singled out to advise the regional planning body because they have expertise of strategic planning and, in the case of county councils and unitary authorities, they are responsible for delivering major services. The area of outstanding natural beauty conservation boards would have neither that experience nor the responsibilities, so it would not make sense to add them to the list.
	I emphasise again—I hope I did in Committee—that the Government attach great importance to ensuring that areas of outstanding natural beauty are protected through the planning system. We also expect area of outstanding natural beauty management bodies to play an important role in the new planning arrangements; for example, as partners in developing a sub-regional strategy for their areas, where that is appropriate. I take on board what the noble Lord has said because in Committee he expressed concern about insufficient collaborative working. Since then he has obviously taken further advice and he has referred to the detailed letter from my noble friend Lord Bassam covering that issue.
	The area of outstanding natural beauty management bodies are, of course, principally comprised of local authority representatives. One must remember that. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides that where area of outstanding natural beauty conservation boards are established, at least 40 per cent of the members must be drawn from local authorities and at least 20 per cent from parish councils. In the Cotswolds and the Chilterns, where conservation boards are currently being established, it is proposed that local authority representation, as I believe the noble Lord implied, will be substantially higher than 40 per cent. Local authorities are and will continue to be at the heart of the management of areas of outstanding natural beauty.
	The fact that local authorities are so strongly represented seems to me to be the best safeguard that they will take the work of areas of outstanding natural beauty seriously. If, as has been suggested, that is not always the case, we cannot really provide in planning legislation for a change of attitude.
	It appears that further and better particulars have not arrived. I shall reply to the noble Lord by letter on the points that he has raised. I shall do that as quickly as possible, in case he wants to take advice on this important issue and return to it at Third Reading.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I look forward to receiving his letter. I shall then consider what further action to take. It occurs to me that I might provide him with a rather more graphical explanation of the problem that I foresee. Let us suppose that the north-eastern regional authority decides that it needs to promote tourism to encourage employment and income in the region. It may consider that it would be excellent to have a large tourist centre adjacent to Hadrian's Wall in the Northumberland National Park. I believe that that kind of activity would be wrong, given the terms of existing legislation which protects the national parks. When the Minister replies to me, he may have that example in the back of his mind—an example of the kind of thing, that with the best intentions in the world, might go wrong.
	Landscape protection is terribly important in our country. When I returned from serving abroad it was always such a delight to visit an area of outstanding natural beauty to see how unchanged it was. They are some of the great treasures of our country and we should not destroy them for rather menial, current activities without very good reason. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 3, line 1, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, this group of amendments ties in with a strengthened role for strategic planning authorities. As I have delayed the House for some time on this matter already today, I shall endeavour to be brief. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. They strengthen the statutory duty of county councils, metropolitan, unitary and national park authorities beyond the government amendments to Clause 5. We have talked about those several times today. They actively assist in the regional planning functions of the RPBs. We want to go further than giving those authorities a statutory advisory role. The authorities will have to carry out the functions for their areas on behalf of the regional planning bodies. Only that will be sufficient to ensure an effective planning system.
	Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are very straightforward. The first deals with ensuring that where authorities have undertaken functions of regional planning bodies and have incurred expenditure in doing so, they will be reimbursed. We discussed that in Committee and did not receive a very satisfactory answer. The power must be statutory. It is only best practice to make it legally watertight. The Minister said that the authority could tell a regional planning body to go away and return with a better offer if the cost of work was not adequately reimbursed. I believe that that would be too casual. It sends out an unwelcome message that when it comes to paying local authorities for the work that they do on behalf of regional planning bodies, such payment is optional or voluntary.
	Presumably, in the funding arrangements for regional planning bodies, they will receive funding to carry out their functions. It is clear that, where those functions are performed by another authority on their behalf, the funding should be transferred to the relevant authority. Any other approach would be unsustainable. We would like to see the Bill as clear as possible on the principle of payment.
	Amendment No. 16 deletes subsection (6) of Clause 5 and would remove the prohibition on a regional planning body arranging for an authority to carry out the functions in Clause 6(6) on its behalf. Those functions are publishing a draft provision to the regional spatial strategy, preparing the report of the sustainability appraisal of the proposals in the draft provision, publishing any further documents related to the draft revision required by regulations under Clause 6(5)(b) and submitting those documents to the Secretary of State.
	The aim of the amendment is to permit more flexibility in the system. It may be necessary for a regional planning body to delegate all or parts of those functions to local authorities in order to match up the right expertise to the right work. That would simply be pragmatic. It may become a helpful support mechanism in the transition period if regional planning bodies have that option available to them.
	It would still be the regional planning bodies' choice whether it wanted to delegate any part of those functions to other authorities. The RPB would still have ownership. To leave them with no choice demonstrates once again central government interference that actually stifles devolution. I would have thought that all assistance between authorities and regional planning bodies should be encouraged. If we are to have a regional planning system, perhaps regional planning bodies will need as much help as possible. We on this side of the House feel very strongly about pushing the Government a little further on provisions for strategic planning authorities in the new planning system. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, our amendment to delete "may" and insert "shall" is Amendment No. 15. That concerns the reimbursement provision mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. As he has reminded the House, the Minister said that if the regional planning bodies' proposals were inadequate to cover the cost, the local authority could tell them to go away and return with a better offer. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House on what basis a local authority could say that. It probably would not say it in quite those terms; there are more formal ways of putting such matters. What legal basis would a local authority have for saying that? After all, authorities have a duty under earlier parts of this clause and I am sure they would not want to avoid exercising that duty. Here we are simply talking about "fair's fair" and if that is so, the balance of legal weight needs to be similar on both sides.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the amendments are somewhat familiar, as noble Lords have said. They deal with the basis on which the regional planning bodies make the arrangements with local authorities for those authorities to exercise the regional planning bodies' functions. The Bill provides a clear statutory role for authorities with strategic planning expertise in advising regional planning bodies. These amendments cannot then be needed to give counties and others a statutory role in strategic planning.
	We have been clear that if the sort of partnership arrangements that we want to see are to work well, they must be entered into voluntarily. Unwilling partners will not be well placed to carry out effective regional planning. The regional planning body has an important job to do for its region. This is likely to be best done by arranging for others to carry out some functions on its behalf.
	Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 would leave the regional planning body unable to carry out its responsibilities and would most likely be fatal to strategic planning at the regional level. The local authority is not obliged to enter into arrangements with the regional planning body. These are voluntary—they can refuse. One assumes that the financial arrangements must be part and parcel of the agreement.
	We heard that a power not a duty to pay sent out an unwelcome message, but this is to overlook the interests in the real world of both the regional planning bodies and the local authorities. If it is not in the local authority's financial interests to enter into an arrangement unless the regional planning body provides some funds, it will say so, and it will not enter into the arrangement. There will be no payment where this is what the regional planning body and the authority agree to as part of agreeing the arrangements. These are adults; they are professionals. They ought to be able to come to voluntary arrangements that include the necessary reimbursement where required.
	We heard that the regional planning body should be able to arrange for an authority to publish a draft revision and submit it to the Secretary of State to give more flexibility, as Amendment No. 16 would provide. Our position on this is clear, and I will repeat it. Prohibition on a regional planning body for arranging for an authority to carry out the functions in Clause 5(6) on its behalf is vital to guarantee true regional ownership of this key regional strategy.
	I have made this point since Second Reading. To get clarity of ownership we must reserve certain key functions for the regional planning body. The regional planning body must take final responsibility for the draft revisions to the regional spatial strategy, the report of the sustainability appraisal and any other documents required by regulations. That is the reason that this amendment is not acceptable. It goes to the heart of what we are trying to do here, and undermines it. I do not say that in a pejorative sense, but that would be its effect.
	On Amendment No. 17, I will repeat what I said in Committee. The words, "must be taken to be", rather than, "shall be"—that is the arrangements under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972—are used because a regional planning body is not a local authority. They were used for that reason alone. The wording in Amendment No. 17 would be right only for arrangements between local authorities, and because the regional planning body is not in law a local authority, that would not be the case.
	We find Amendment No. 26 difficult to understand, but we assume that the intention is to refer to subsection 5(3) not subsection 4(2). I made this point on an earlier amendment, where there was clearly a carry-over from Committee stage in the drafting of colleagues' notes. If this is the case, the amendment would place a duty on county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan district councils and national park authorities to assist the regional planning body in preparing a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. We are a bit surprised to see the amendment re-appear.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that the purpose of the amendment was to provide county councils and unitary authorities with a statutory role in the preparation and revision of regional spatial strategies. Clause 5 now does that. That was part of the government arrangements and negotiations with the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network, which clearly have not gone far enough, as indicated in our debate earlier this afternoon. I have no doubt that we will hear more about that in due course. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendments.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in his comments on Amendment No. 15, the Minister referred to the reimbursement subsection (5) in terms of the arrangements that are the subject of subsection (4), immediately above it. There is a difference between us because since subsection (5) was drafted we have added subsections (1) and (2) to the clause. When I was talking about the legal basis on which an authority could say, "Get lost until you make me a reasonable offer", I was referring to that part of the clause. The Minister may have been referring only to what was there originally when this part of the Bill was drafted. It is worth making that point now, because it may at least be worth considering whether it needs to be tweaked.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will take further advice on that, and if need be I will write to the noble Baroness.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we have been over some of this ground before, but I want to go back to it again. We have now changed the Bill considerably since its original inception, and we hope that it will stay somewhat changed when it becomes ultimate planning policy. No one is disputing the ownership of the RSS. The policies will belong to the regional planning board. We need total clarity about payment as we complete the stages of the Bill.
	Obviously, the regional planning body will need other bodies to help it in its work. The Minister has accepted that. It will need other local authorities in the region—the regions are all very big—unless it is going to have vast empires of staff. There are not enough planners in the country to do that. Therefore, there will need to be collaborative systems of drawing up the regional planning strategies. There will need to be clarity about payment, not just taking the best offer that comes along, which was rather jokingly talked about in the early stages. We will listen, and we will read what the Minister says. Perhaps he would like to clarify the situation before Third Reading. We will read what has been said in Hansard. No doubt we will come back to these issues at the Bill's next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 14 to 20 not moved.]
	Clause 6 [RSS: revision]:
	[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 3, line 17, at end insert "which shall be not more than three years after the commencement of Part 1"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. Grouped with the amendment are Amendments Nos. 23 and 25, which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
	Amendment No. 22 requires the regional planning body to get on with revising the RSS to make it its own, not more than three years after the commencement of Part 1. Amendment No. 23, which we also debated in Committee, proposes a five-year period. I am not sure whether that means every five years, although that seems to be the basis on which the Minister responded to the amendment the last time around. I am not clear that that is what is intended.
	This is another way of seeking to tackle the issue of who owns the regional spatial strategy and to move smartly towards it being the work of the regional planning body. However, I take the point made earlier this afternoon that the regional planning guidance was by no means divorced from the regional planning bodies, as they exist at the moment. As I understand it, despite what the Minister said, they are not "Regional Planning Bodies" under the terms of the Bill; they are regional assemblies that have had that job given to them. They are not regional planning bodies as designated by the Bill; the Bill has not been enacted, so they cannot be.
	We identified the three-year period because the Minister said on the previous occasion and repeated today that it would take at least two years for a revision. I am not seeking to knock out the regional planning guidance, but I am saying that we should get on with the successor work within a time frame that the Minister seems to think reasonable.
	The second of our amendments would delete Clause 6(2). I cannot for the life of me understand why the regional planning body has to give notice to the Secretary of State that it intends to prepare a draft revision. That seems to be prescription of the highest order. We have been exhorted so many times to think about what things would be like in reality, and it seems unreal to think that the regional planning body might operate in such privacy that it would tell nobody—certainly not the Secretary of State—that it was dealing with a draft revision. We want to get the situation on an even keel with the other things that we have been talking about. I do not see why the Bill needs to be so prescriptive here, so I thought that I would indulge in a whinge about the Secretary of State's overweening and unnecessary role in some cases, of which this is an example. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I shall not move Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 today. There were substantial answers on the previous occasion. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, today, and we can reflect on the issues before the final stage.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall also try to keep it brief. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 fish in essentially the same pool. No doubt, the noble Lord will listen to what I have to say about them. The amendments tackle the same issue.
	We want to move as quickly as possible to put in place regional plans that are genuinely spatial and provide an effective statutory framework for delivery through local plans and ensure that they are kept up to date and timely. The issue is whether it is necessary or helpful to legislate for that. In my view, it is not essential to put that into the Bill. We already have in place a system that means that regional planning guidance now and regional spatial strategies in the future are regularly revised as needed by regional planning bodies. We do not need to prescribe a fixed timetable in legislation.
	In aid of that view, I cite something that my noble friend Lord Rooker referred to earlier, when talking about revision. The west Midlands has the oldest current regional planning guidance. Believe it or not, it dates back only to 1998. As, I think, my noble friend Lord Rooker suggested, a revision is in process and will be issued shortly. In every region, full or partial revisions are already under way or are being planned. We simply do not have a problem with out-of-date regional plans being allowed to gather dust that might make such an amendment necessary.
	Requiring a revision of the regional spatial strategy—I assume that the amendment refers to a comprehensive revision—at least every five years is too prescriptive and would be unhelpful. The regional spatial strategy looks at least 15 years ahead and addresses a wide range of issues and policy areas. A comprehensive revision is therefore a major exercise in terms of time, money, expertise and other resources. It is a major commitment. We would expect a comprehensive revision to take nearly two years from the process kicking off to the end of the examination in public. We do not want, by prescribing a fixed five-year revision cycle, to compel the regional planning body to spend what we might say is half its time revising the whole regional spatial strategy. A fixed review cycle would reduce flexibility and potentially create unnecessary work.
	Amendment No. 24 would remove the requirement on the regional planning body to give notice to the Secretary of State of its intention to prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. The noble Baroness was honest enough to say that it was a whinge, and I reckon that I recognise a whinge when I see it. Fair dos to the noble Baroness: I understand where she is coming from. It is not an over-onerous requirement. The regional planning body and the Government Office will, in any case, discuss when revisions need to be prepared and the sort of topics that they should cover. Although the final revision of the regional spatial strategy remains the Secretary of State's document, it is right in principle that he should be notified when the regional planning body intends to prepare a revision. My guess is that that would help in the planning of workloads, and so on, and enable the Government Office and the Secretary of State to understand where the process is at a given time, which is probably useful. I can understand the whinge, but it is not an over-burdensome issue, and we should not detain ourselves with it at this level.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy to leave things as they are. I think that I have covered the points that were raised, and I hope that my responses will find favour.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, what I said on Amendment No. 24 was a whinge, but it was a question as well. I suspect that, were the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in opposition, he might think that this was a good point to ask Members of the House to take a little exercise, just to make the point. I shall not do so. The Minister made the best of a bad job, but those two lines should not be in the Bill. They are nonsense.
	I hope that the Minister will understand that, with Amendment No. 22, I was not proposing that there should be a triennial revision. The confusion about the quinquennial revision arose from one of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, which was not spoken to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I must put the noble Baroness's mind at rest: I understood that. Those proposing both amendments wanted to establish some idea of the regularity of the revision process.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wanted to understand not so much the regularity but the move towards the new activity. I hear what the Minister says, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 not moved.]

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 3, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) transport strategy or proposed transport strategy for the region;
	( ) housing strategy or proposed housing strategy for the region;
	( ) economic strategy or proposed economic strategy for the region;
	( ) all other regional strategies;"

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that, in any revision of the regional spatial strategy, all relevant strategies drawn up by local authorities in the region were taken into account. I do not like the phrase—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, used it this afternoon—but it is about "joined-up government". It is about recognising the importance of the bottom-up approach; many of us have criticised the Bill because we think that it is too top-down.
	There are four areas of strategy listed here—transport, housing, economic and other regional strategies—but many of the three areas of transport, housing and economic strategy are key to sustainability in this process. We have had long debates about sustainability and there will undoubtedly be more debates at this stage. However, if we are serious about sustainability—and we are discussing defining it in the Bill and how difficult it is—it is important to expand in the Bill where we can, to ensure that we are looking at it carefully.
	Shortly before I came down to the Chamber, I opened a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which enclosed the consultation paper on planning policy statement 1. In that letter he emphasises the importance of sustainable development. In the document he also emphasises the need in planning policies to pursue proactively the four aims of sustainable development; namely, economic development, social inclusion, environmental protection and a prudent use of natural resources in an integrated way. The various strategies we have listed here will certainly assist in making sure that that happens. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no difference between us on the need for the regional planning body to have regard to these strategies when preparing a revision of the regional spatial strategy. That is subject to two qualifications. The first is that there is no intention to have separate regional transport strategies. These are an integral part of regional planning guidance at present. Draft planning policy statement 11 makes it clear that, in the future, the regional transport strategy should be an integral part of the regional spatial strategy.
	The second qualification is to the proposed obligation to have regard to all other regional strategies. In fact, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I have just rewritten her own amendment. If the first three paragraphs, together with the word "other" in the final paragraph, were to be deleted and it read, "all regional strategies", it would mean exactly the same thing as listing the three and then saying, "all other regional strategies".
	There is a test of relevance when one includes all the regional strategies. I am not an expert on this, but apparently there are regional strategies concerned with emergency planning, contingent on natural disaster or act of war. They are not really relevant to the area we are dealing with at the moment, so that would not work.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in Committee that draft planning policy statement 11 makes it clear that the regional spatial strategy should be consistent and supportive of the other relevant regional strategies, including in particular the regional economic, housing, and cultural strategies. Draft planning policy statement 11 explains that the reason why the draft regulations refer only to the regional economic strategy, rather than the cultural or housing strategies, is because the economic strategy is the only one of these strategies to have a statutory basis.
	I make it absolutely clear that we agree that regard should be had to these other types of regional strategies where they are relevant. The policy is quite clear on this, as set out in planning policy statement 11. However, we see no need to refer to these strategies in the Bill, and we could not do so anyway because of the non-statutory basis of many of them. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I beg to differ with him on natural disasters. Having had discussions, particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, on what we mean by sustainability, I know that he is of the view, as are others, that sustainable communities are also communities where people are protected from natural disaster and are safe communities. Safety is also about protection from natural disasters such as flooding. I do not therefore totally agree with him on that point.
	He said that the strategies we were talking about, apart from the economic strategy, were not statutory. I thought that the drawing up of strategy by the regional housing board was a statutory function. Maybe I am wrong about that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot answer this off the top of my head, but the way in which we have put the funds for the housing corporation and the housing investment programmes for local authorities into the regional pot has not involved legislation through this place. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no statutory instrument. It has been set up, but it is not statutory in the normal sense of that word.
	While I am on my feet, I want to say something about natural disasters. By definition, natural disasters occur and one has to try to avoid them. My point was that there is, however, a regional strategy concerned with emergency planning.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. He clearly does not agree with our line. I am concerned that we try, wherever possible in the Bill, to include matters which make very clear what we mean by sustainability. That was part of the purpose of this amendment. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) The draft revision shall include the purposes of the RSS as revised."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will speak also to Amendment No. 30.
	Amendment No. 29 provides for the draft revision to include the purposes of the regional spatial strategy. We had some debate in Committee on the scope of the RSS. In that context, I picked up the reference in Clause 4(3)(b). That provision states that the regional planning body must consider whether the implementation of the regional spatial strategy is achieving the purposes of the regional spatial strategy.
	I may be told, of course, that it is not necessary to say this because the regional spatial strategy will set out its objectives, but it does not actually say so in Clause 6. It needs to say so, in order that the regional planning body can monitor what it is doing, and so that others can monitor what it is doing and hold it to account.
	Amendment No. 30 proposes that policies should be included in the regional spatial strategy in respect of the format as set out in the amendment. There has been a good deal of resistance to being explicit about these matters, but we are losing the current structure plans and unitary development plans, which have requirements attached to them, imposed through Schedule 4 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The schedule contains explicit requirements for structure, unitary, and indeed local plans, to include policies in respect of the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land, the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic. I am concerned to ensure that this is not lost.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a point about not having room for more on the face of the Bill. He said that everything else would remain as it is in the principal Act; that is, the 1990 Act. That Act was amended by the 1991 Act. I hope I have shown that we would lose something that is in the 1990 Act unless it is specifically retained.
	I have added a paragraph in Amendment No. 30 regarding,
	"the conservation of natural resources"
	because it seemed the logical thing to do. Thinking has moved on since what became the 1990 Act was going through the process of creation. Many would say that conserving natural resources is now something that one would, if your Lordships will forgive the pun, quite naturally include with the other matters in the schedule to the 1991 Act. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I should like to add our support for those amendments.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the amendments are consistent with the Government's policy on what a regional spatial strategy should contain, although Amendment No. 30 is not broad enough in scope. I have said before that there is an issue about what we should prescribe in the Bill in terms of the content of the regional spatial strategy rather than in policy guidance and, if necessary, in regulations.
	Paragraph 1.5 of the draft planning policy statement 11 makes it clear that the regional spatial strategy should set out a concise spatial strategy for achieving the desired vision for the region, and there should be a clear link between policy objectives, priorities, targets and indicators. This must include being quite clear what the policy purposes of the regional spatial strategy are.
	When we debated an amendment similar to Amendment No. 30 tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I said that we would need a much more comprehensive definition of the content of a regional spatial strategy and we must not have such a selective definition that singles out only some of the principles of sustainable development and unnecessarily restricts the scope of the regional spatial strategy. I referred in Committee to the much more comprehensive definition of what the draft planning policy statement says the regional spatial strategy should cover.
	A similar issue arose in the past in relation to the content of development plans set out in the principal Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The definition there is similar to what is covered by Amendment No. 30.
	Since the 1990 Act, we have had to make it clear in planning policy guidance notes that other equally important policy topics needed to be covered. An example is the list of topics for inclusion in structure plans and Part 1 of the unitary development plans, set out on page 19 of planning policy guidance 12, which relates to development plans.
	We think it would be a mistake to fossilise on the face of the Bill references to what matters the regional spatial strategy should contain, since these may change in the future. We really believe that such matters of content are best left for policy and guidance and, if necessary, regulation so the House can be involved and we can take advantage of experience and respond more flexibly to future needs. The real bone of contention is putting too much detail on the face of the Bill in the principal legislation, because it curtails us later in reacting to events.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister has responded to Amendment No. 29. That may be because of the movement going on around me.
	I appreciate that the list of items which I have taken from the 1991 Act is additional to what is in the 1990 Act. It says that the UDP shall consist of a written statement formulating the authority's general policies in respect of the development and other use of land in their area, including measures for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic. These items were substituted for the latter part.
	The question that arises is whether the Government think that there has been any problem with what the Minister characterised as the rather restricted list of contents. We are concerned, as he acknowledged, to see the same sort of matters covered. I suppose the question is whether the existing legislation on UDPs and structure plans is thought to be defective.
	As I said, I am not sure whether the first amendment in the group has had an answer, but I will read Hansard and see whether it amounts to an answer. The Minister says he did—I do not disbelieve him, I just did not recognise it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 3, line 35, leave out "the subject matter of" and insert "subjects which shall (without limitation) be included in"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 32 repeats an amendment tabled in Committee to enable the regional planning body to add to what the Secretary of State prescribed should be included in the regional spatial strategy.
	The Minister replied that the provisions are a safeguard and that the Secretary of State probably would not have to prescribe. The amendment would not affect that either way. He said he would expect the revision to be agreed through negotiations between the regional planning body and the Government Office and that even if the Secretary of State were to prescribe the subject matter, that did not mean he would prescribe the content of the revision.
	Finally, the Minister said that Clause 6(1)(a) provides that the RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS
	"when it appears to it necessary or expedient to do so"
	The Minister said that the regional planning body can have what it wants if it thinks it is expedient. It is the "what" that I am bothered about. The four criteria referred to are the extent of the revision proposed by the draft.
	The debate went on for quite a long time. I am still not convinced that the clause is as wide as I would like. I am sorry to ask the Minister to go back to the debate; he may feel that it would be adequate to refer back, but if he has some new points, I would be glad to hear them. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness was not reassured by what I said in Committee. I will make it really clear and unambiguous, without using much of my brief.
	I assure the noble Baroness that if the regional planning body wants to, it has complete freedom to prepare a draft revision that goes wider than any subjects prescribed in regulations under this clause. There is a reason for that: any regulations in no way detract from the duty in Clause 6(1)(a), which provides that the regional planning body must prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy,
	"when it appears to it necessary or expedient to do so".
	That is wide and catch-all. Therefore, none of the other regulations can detract from that duty. I hope that that spells everything out.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Clause 6 (1)(a) states that the RPB must prepare a draft revision "when" it appears necessary. Is the Minister saying that because the clause does not state what must be dealt with, that the "what" is an open matter? That is what my question boils down to.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the "when" means when it appears necessary. Do not forget that when the regional planning body thinks it necessary, and it appears that it is necessary or expedient to prepare that revision, the RPB will do so—it must do it when it appears necessary. Because the matter is subject to examination in public, the RPB can make minor revisions or major revisions, as I made clear when we discussed the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. It can tear everything up and start again. However, in the mean time, we have regional policies because of the transition from the old to the new scheme. The RPB can make minor adjustments if it thinks that they are necessary.
	All such matters are subject to public examination, so they cannot be tinkered with in any rational way by the Secretary State—which is what underlines most of the amendments put before the House. Nobody seems to trust my right honourable friend to do the right thing, yet he has made wonderful, brilliant planning decisions since he has had the responsibility to do so.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister trusts his right honourable friend's successors in the fourth or fifth government to follow this one. That is the problem. We have made it clear throughout the debate that the Minister's integrity is not impugned and neither is that of his right honourable friend, but future governments remain to be tested. That lies at the heart of so much of what we are saying about the Secretary of State's role and why we are so concerned to spell out the "what". The subject matter is not restricted to what the Secretary of State says in the regulations it must contain—it is merely the starting point and the RPB can add its own assessment.
	The Minister has reassured me. I am reassured about what he and his colleagues in the Government intend. However, none of us is able to give a reassurance about how future governments will carry on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.33 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2004

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In moving these draft regulations, I will also speak to the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2004.
	There are two statutory instruments to be considered. The first is the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 which are made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 126 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 126 enables the Secretary of State, by the making of regulations, to require that an immigration application be accompanied by physical data of an external characteristic or to enable an authorised person to require an entrant to provide information of this sort. One set of regulations has already been made under this power—the Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) Regulations 2003. The 2003 regulations required the provision of a record of fingerprints by entry clearance applicants in Colombo.
	The second statutory instrument is the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2004, which is made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3A of the Immigration Act 1971, as inserted by Section 1 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Section 3A (3) enables the Secretary of State by order to prescribe the circumstances in which an entry clearance is to have effect as leave to enter the United Kingdom.
	The purpose of these statutory instruments is to expand the current fingerprinting power in the 2003 regulations to encompass new categories of immigration application. The new provision will require those applying for entry clearance in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Tanzania and Uganda to provide fingerprint data. Holders of 1951 convention travel documents issued outside the UK will also be required to provide fingerprints on making an application for leave to enter the UK. We are amending the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order so that this application has to be made on arrival in the UK. This ensures that any 1951 convention document holders who refuse to provide their fingerprints can be refused leave to enter.
	Fingerprinting in Colombo will continue. The initial six-month pilot has been concluded and the results were reported to the House in the letter from my right honourable friend Beverley Hughes of 5 February to the chair of the Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. The results of the pilot are encouraging and the Government remain convinced that greater use of biometric technology will support efforts to prevent document and identity fraud. It will enable those who have an entitlement to enter the UK to do so without hindrance while preventing those who seek to circumvent our controls from doing so.
	There will be no change to the procedural safeguards already provided as part of the existing fingerprint requirement. Applicants who are under 16 years of age will have their fingerprints taken only in the presence of a responsible adult who is over 18 years of age and not employed by the Government. Those safeguards also apply to the new categories of applicant who will be subject to the fingerprint requirement. Fingerprints collected in Colombo and east Africa will be added to the immigration and asylum fingerprint system database. That will allow for the identification of any visa applicant who subsequently makes either an asylum or immigration application in a different identity. That will, in turn, help establish the nationality of those who no longer have a basis on which to remain in the UK, and so assist with securing their removal.
	In common with other data collected in respect of immigration and asylum applications, fingerprints will be shared with the police and other law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the prevention or investigation of crime. All such exchanges will be carried out in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. That means that data may only be disclosed when it is necessary for one of the specified purposes set out in the data protection legislation, such as the exercise of statutory, departmental or police functions, and that the disclosure must be conducted in accordance with the data protection principles. An additional safeguard is that, under the regulations, any fingerprints stored on the database are required to be destroyed no more than 10 years from the day on which they were provided.
	Any entry clearance application that is not accompanied by the necessary fingerprint data may be treated as invalid. There may be exceptions, including applicants who, because of physical disability or injury, cannot provide fingerprints. The system will be operated in a reasonable way to limit the impact on applicants.
	We also propose to fingerprint holders of all 1951 convention travel documents issued outside the UK at the time those people make an application for leave to enter this country. There is some evidence to suggest that, in addition to more conventional document fraud, individuals who have been granted refugee status elsewhere are making asylum applications after arriving in the UK. They do this by travelling to the UK on a convention travel document issued by another country which they destroy on arrival in the UK and subsequently claim asylum. Fingerprinting such people on arrival will allow us to identify the basis on which they entered the UK if they subsequently claim asylum. Again, the safeguards in relation to age and use and storage of fingerprints will apply.
	The Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 is being amended because, at present, an entry clearance will act as leave to enter. Without this amendment any convention travel document holder with an entry clearance would enjoy a right of entry to the UK. To require such a person to provide fingerprints at the entry clearance stage would require the installation of fingerprinting equipment at every entry clearance post world-wide, as we do not want the fingerprint requirement imposed on convention travel document holders to be limited to those applying in certain countries. To do that would involve vastly disproportionate expense. The order needs to be amended to make clear that the holder of a convention travel document must apply for leave to enter on arrival in the UK even when he or she is in possession of a valid entry clearance. If a convention document holder refuses to provide fingerprint data when seeking entry to the UK, that application for leave can be refused and the individual can, if appropriate, be removed.
	We are working with the authorities in relevant east African countries to effect a smooth introduction to the fingerprinting operation. The support and co-operation received is much appreciated by this Government. The UNHCR is also being consulted about these proposals.
	As I have said, we believe that the use of biometric technology in the immigration field is an important development that will provide greater certainty over people's identity than has been possible in the past. We are not alone in that view. We are working with our EU partners on proposals for the inclusion of biometric identifiers in visas and residence permits, and noble Lords will be aware that the US authorities are already making greater use of fingerprint data. Those measures will of course provide benefits for us and our controls, but they also provide reassurance to legitimate travellers. By reducing the scope for identity fraud, we reduce the risk that legitimate travellers will have their identity stolen or, because of similar details, will be mistaken for someone else. It is for those reasons we believe that it is essential that we make appropriate use of biometrics. I commend the regulations and the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive explanation of the two orders. The physical data order extends the entry requirement for both visa and non-visa nationals, which they must obtain for clearance before travelling to the UK. Apart from the saving in time by processing such applications before arrival in the distant country, it also saves the complications that could arise in certain circumstances in which entry would otherwise be refused at the port of entry. That is a policy that we certainly support, and it is clearly a matter of some satisfaction that the pilot scheme in Sri Lanka has worked well. We accordingly support the move to extend the policy to the other countries in east Africa.
	We also welcome the tightening of the requirements in respect of the documents relating to documents issued pursuant to the UN convention on refugees by requiring the production of fingerprints to the Immigration Service. We welcome the effect that that will have on applications under another identity or where national security is involved. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the safeguards that are in place to ensure that that is not abused.
	The other, related order tightens up the loophole in the previous order and provides that an entry clearance shall no longer have effect as to leave to entry when that entry clearance is endorsed on a refugee travel document. We are pleased to note that that is not retrospective and applies only to those refugee documents endorsed after 27 February 2004. We on these Benches support the two orders.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are also much obliged to the Minister for her comprehensive explanation of the orders. We are in favour in general terms of the better use of physical data in preventing illegal immigration and are aware of the useful work that is already being done on that subject. In Sub-Committee F we had the opportunity to visit Oakington, where we were told that some people who had been refused asylum came round the second time and were being detected by the fingerprint system. To that extent, we are already making good use of biometric data and there is no reason in principle why that should not be extended. However, we need to be assured that the present proposals are both proportionate and compatible with data protection considerations. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks on those matters.
	We do not have the letter referring to proportionality that the Minister said was sent by her colleague in another place to the committee. I asked in the Printed Paper Office and in the Library, and I can tell the Minister that it was not on POLIS. Therefore, I have come into the Chamber without full knowledge of the report made by the Minister in another place, although I have had the opportunity of studying what she said before the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
	The Minister in another place explained that the purpose was to extend the use of biometric controls to the countries mentioned today. She also gave some information about the results from the letter; she said that 14,000 fingerprints had been taken in Colombo and that the result was that seven people were positively identified and two of them received prison sentences. In reply to a question from Mr Boswell, she said that if one considered the decline in applications from Colombo and compared it with the equivalents from India and Pakistan, there was a more than proportionate reduction. Therefore, fingerprinting had been effective, not only in catching people who committed offences but in deterring unjustified applications from Colombo. I would very much like to have seen the coloured graphs that the right honourable Lady mentioned in her speech to the Standing Committee; I hope that copies of them can be placed in your Lordships' Library.
	The Minister in another place also made the point that sharing the data had to be consistent in all respects with the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the common law of confidence. I should like to ask the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, what consultation she has had with the Information Commissioner on the matter. It is not only what the Government say about the use that is to be made of the data that matters, but what the statutory body set up for the protection of individuals under the Data Protection Act has to say. Personally, I should like there to be a certificate in the legislation, when major extensions are being contemplated in the use of biometric data, saying that the Government have consulted the Information Commissioner and that he has raised no objections to the proposals.
	The noble Baroness referred indirectly to the European Union draft directive on the use of biometrics on all passengers arriving at ports of entry into the EU. The report from Sub-Committee F on the proposal, which was published on 12 February, found that an adequate case had not been made out for that proposal, which was of course much more far-reaching than what is in front of us now, because of the considerable burden it would place on carriers and the disproportionate cost in comparison with the results hoped to be achieved. It is unfortunate that we have had no opportunity of debating that report, as we are faced with a creeping extension—although it may be perfectly justified—of the use of physical data without the opportunity to consider the order in the context of the more far-reaching proposals that will be coming down the track. However, that may simply be an accident of our timetable, which could not have been avoided.
	Both the UK and the European Union have taken their cue on these matters from the US, where all visitors from non-visa waiver countries must already provide biometric data on arrival. I understand that that is to be extended to everybody who enters the United States, even those who possess standing visas, from October this year. Perhaps we do not have any discretion in this matter, when airlines will be compelled to accept US regulations. There will be very practical reasons for Europe to adopt the same rules. However, we should at least know what it is going to cost, what new obligations are being loaded on to carriers and whether the Government and the Information Commissioner are fully satisfied that adequate steps are being taken to ensure that our data protection legislation is being observed.
	I should like to say a word on the imposition of the new requirements on the holders of convention travel documents. I understand what the noble Baroness said about not requiring everyone to obtain fingerprints before they set off, as that would entail an enormous extension of the fingerprinting system to every country from which a CTD holder might arrive. Presumably, however, when CTD holders from the main countries in east Africa—and from Kenya if it is added to the list, as was discussed in the Standing Committee in another place—apply at those posts for an entry certificate, they will automatically be fingerprinted before they set off and will not have to be fingerprinted again on arrival. I also assume that when CTD holders apply for an entry certificate in other countries that are not in east Africa or in Sri Lanka they will be told specifically that they will be asked to give a fingerprint on arrival in the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble Baroness can give those assurances. I welcome this order and these regulations.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the warmth of their welcome for the order and regulations, for the utility which they will provide in determining the bona fides of the identity of those seeking to rely on them, and for their generosity and understanding of why they have become necessary. Having said thank you very warmly, I hope, to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for his unreserved support, I turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
	The Information Commissioner has not specifically been consulted. However, as the noble Lord will know, the Data Protection Act provides very clear safeguards. We have taken those safeguards very seriously indeed. We are not aware of any issues raised by the commissioner in relation to Sri Lanka but we shall certainly make inquiries about them. As for the issues raised about the CTD holders, the noble Lord's description was correct. The fingerprints should be taken once. We are proposing the amendment so that those who have not had their fingerprints taken can have them taken when they arrive.
	The noble Lord also asked whether east African CTD holders will be required to provide fingerprints on arrival. The answer is: no; they will have their fingerprints captured when they apply for a visa overseas prior to arrival. So people will have their fingerprints taken either prior to arrival or on arrival. I thank the noble Lord for his appreciation of the utility of the scheme we have put together. We think that it neatly fits the requirement for a measure which is necessary and proportionate. Of course I note the noble Lord's comments on the regrettability of not having a debate. As always, that is not within our hands; it is a matter for the usual channels.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2004

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Independent Police Complaints Commission (Investigatory Powers) Order 2004

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5 February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this draft order has been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It will bring into effect the procedures for authorising and using directed and intrusive surveillance and for the conduct and use of covert human intelligence sources.
	Where there is an allegation of criminal conduct by a person serving with the police, there is a real need for an independent alternative to an investigation by the police. Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 envisages that the IPCC will itself conduct investigations only in the most serious cases. The IPCC investigators will need to operate in the same way as the police and will need the same capabilities and the same powers in order, for example, to interfere with property, to engage in surveillance or to use human intelligence sources. The order will give the IPCC the necessary powers to conduct investigations independently from the police into allegations of serious criminal conduct by any person serving with the police.
	The modifications made by this order are about setting appropriate levels within the IPCC in regard to authorisation to use specific powers for specific purposes; ensuring that the IPCC is subject to equivalent controls as apply to the police; and handling of complaints against the IPCC in exercising its powers under the order.
	The provisions in the Police Act 1997 and RIPA were drafted to ensure sufficient certainty in the mechanisms for safeguarding against the misuse of the powers contained in them. Such safeguards are required to comply with the duty under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Existing mechanisms provided by the Police Act 1997 and RIPA are compatible with the convention rights. This order slots the IPCC into the existing mechanism. There has been consultation on the order with the independent Police Complaints Commission, the IPCC, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales. I should like to reassure the House that these provisions will be used with the most stringent compliance with the rules and will address the most serious cases. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5 February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I again thank the Minister for her helpful explanation. This is a very significant order as it sets in train the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It is of the most vital importance that this body is seen to be the monitor of police behaviour in exercising the very considerable powers they now possess particularly under the Police Act 1997 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It is so important in maintaining the public's confidence in the integrity and good behaviour of the police.
	The order includes some very satisfactory requirements for authorisation by senior officers and officials of the commission. We very much welcome the express provision in the order relating to the requirement of the IPCC to assist the tribunal with documentation and information, thus providing a further monitoring body for the proper exercise of police powers.
	In these days of the ever-present threat of terrorism in the United Kingdom it is important that the ever-delicate balance between respect for the rights of the individual and the security of the realm is correctly struck. I would very much welcome the Minister's assurance that the Government are satisfied that the order meets that criterion. I welcome the order.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that it is essential to maintain public confidence in the police and that this order goes to the heart of that matter in giving the IPCC identical powers to conduct investigations into complaints of criminal conduct by police officers as there would be if that conduct were committed by a member of the public.
	I should like to add only one comment to those of the noble Viscount. Although the noble Baroness has given us the assurance that these powers will be used extremely sparingly—I certainly hope that that will be the case—I should like to know what kind of parliamentary oversight there will be of the use made of the powers. Will a report be made by the Independent Police Complaints Commission on the particular exercise of these powers; or, when the powers are exercised, will it be part of a general report—such as an annual report—that they make?
	I should like to be assured that this extensive power will be monitored properly and that the way in which it is used is known to the public, so that the assurance sought and obtained by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in respect of the order is extended to the actual exercise of the power; and it is not simply a theoretical notion that those powers might be used in extreme cases.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, again I thank both noble Lords for their helpful remarks in support of the order.
	In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I am happy to say that we are so satisfied. The IPCC will prepare annual reports which will include the occasions that the powers are used. I hope that that satisfies the concern expressed, quite properly, by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.33 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 to 8.33 p.m.]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 33, I must inform your Lordships that if it is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 34 for reasons of pre-emption.

Clause 7 [RSS: Secretary of State's functions]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 4, line 9, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
	"(3) Before publishing the revision of the RSS, the Secretary of State shall cause an examination in public to be held of such matters affecting the consideration of the proposals as he considers ought to be examined, unless the draft revision is minor and inconsequential."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I wish to speak only to Amendment No. 33 and not to Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 which will not be moved tonight.
	As I have just said, in this grouping I wish to speak only to Amendment No. 33. The Bill gives the Secretary of State discretion whether to hold an examination in public into revisions of an RSS. The discretion is put in fairly general terms. He could decline to hold an examination in public in a wide variety of circumstances.
	The examination is a very important part of the process. It enables local authorities and interest groups to argue the merits of a draft RSS before an independent person and to seek recommendations that changes be made. It should only be in respect of minor uncontentious changes—effectively tidying up—that an examination will be unnecessary. This seems in practice to be the Secretary of State's view. The consultation draft Planning Policy Statement 11 states that in paragraph 230:
	"There is a strong presumption that an examination in public will be held and it is only in the exceptional circumstances of a minor revision and subject to the criteria set out in [old] Clause 6(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that the Secretary of State may decide that an examination is unnecessary".
	Our amendment better reflects the Secretary of State's intention than subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7 as drafted. The Bill could be used to deny examinations in public on significant and contentious issues. Our amendment would safeguard the safeguard, as it were. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall speak only to Amendment No. 33. As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 33 would amend Clause 7 to require an examination in public to be held unless the draft revision is minor and inconsequential and would delete subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7. The amendment seeks to achieve almost precisely the same thing as the two subsections that it would delete—that an examination in public will be held except where the changes proposed to the regional spatial strategy are so minor and routine that the effort and expense involved would not be justified.
	We believe though that the current wording of the Bill is better than that proposed in the amendment. The extent of previous consultation and the level of interest shown in a draft, though we would expect those to be in line with the importance of the revision, could be important factors in their own right. A revision might be minor but still contentious. In those circumstances there should be an examination in public.
	The Bill as drafted would allow for that, so one has to be careful. I do not believe that there is anything between us on the principle of this issue, but we want to allow for circumstances such as when a revision might be minor, but could still be contentious for certain sections or groups. Therefore, one would justifiably hold an examination in public. On that basis, unless the noble Lord has any further point, I hope he will not pursue the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that there is not really any difference between us. We just want to make certain that where there could be a minor but contentious issue, there should be an examination in public. I am pleased to note his comments, which will appear in Hansard. It is important that it is on the record, because there needs to be the right examination in public in the right circumstances at the right time. Clarity is important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
	Clause 8 [RSS: examination in public]:
	[Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved.]
	Clause 9 [RSS: future procedure]:
	[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (7).

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to withdraw a draft revision of the RSS on the basis that it is not his document to withdraw.
	I was minded not to return to this issue because the Minister gave us a helpful response in Committee. However, on reflection, three important questions remain, which I ask the Minister to clarify. The first goes right to the heart of the Bill. Who owns the regional spatial strategy? Clause 1 makes it clear that the policy is the strategy of the Secretary of State. The provision implies that the document itself belongs to the Secretary of State. That cannot be the case. Regional spatial strategies are developed and prepared by regional planning bodies. The strategy must be owned by the RPB, not the Secretary of State.
	The second question is whether, if subsection (7) is to be used to stop the RSS revision process grinding on when a change has occurred that was so fundamental—such as a radical new economic or waste strategy—it would be better and more pragmatic to go back to one or two stages. That is the hypothetical situation that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, used by way of illustration. If that happened, would it not be better and less prescriptive for the regional planning body to step in and withdraw the draft revision of the RSS so that it could incorporate the new developments? I believe that, in some ways, this is an extension of my first question. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify those points in a moment.
	My third question is: will the Secretary of State be able to exercise his powers under subsection (7) only after the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy has been presented to him or will he be able to intervene at an earlier stage when it is still the case that the RPB could withdraw the draft revision under Clause 6(7)?
	If the latter interpretation prevails, I wish to reiterate our serious reservations about the centralising tendency—the overwhelming top-down approach—of the whole RSS revision process. The planning system should work from the bottom up. It is that quality that has made it so successful in the past.
	If there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State withdrawing the draft revision of the RSS when that would properly be the decision of the RPB, I believe that we may need to consider this issue again before the Bill completes its passage. However, I would like to have the Minister's answers to these questions now. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, so would I. Amendment No. 40 would remove the Secretary of State's power to withdraw a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy at any time before he publishes the final version. That would prevent the revision process being rewound if that is the best option. Even if everyone could see that the current draft revision should not be pursued, that would have to happen in any case. Therefore, a real problem arises there.
	Clause 9(7) is a pragmatic provision to prevent the revision process grinding on when, for reasons such as those that I have just mentioned, it needs to go back a stage or, indeed, several stages. Clause 6(7) similarly allows the regional planning body to withdraw a draft revision at any stage before it submits it to the Secretary of State for the same reasons.
	Therefore, with regard to the first question concerning who owns the regional spatial strategy, the answer is the regional planning body because, as we said in our debates before the dinner break, the RPB is the initiator. It is true that, ultimately, the Secretary of State gives the imprimatur promulgation but, of course, that is only after the examination has taken place in public.
	Clause 9(7) states:
	"But the Secretary of State may withdraw a draft revision . . . at any time before he publishes the revision".
	However, the point is that he will only be able to do that after it has been given to him by the regional planning body. He will not have seen it before it is submitted to him and therefore it would be unreasonable to withdraw it. Thus, he could take that action only when the draft revision had been given to him by the regional planning body, when, presumably, it would have gone through all its processes. According to the answer that I have just given, he could not step back in the process while it was going on and stop something that he had not seen or had submitted to him. The Secretary of State cannot direct a withdrawal before the draft regional spatial strategy is submitted to him.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question which goes back to my own example. The Government have announced that they want another runway and a big extension at Stansted airport in Essex. Therefore, if we were in the new world of regional spatial policies and other planning policies, obviously there would have to be a revision which the Government would have initiated because they had announced that they wanted a runway. Surely the Secretary of State would have to ask for a revision of the planning policies because another Minister—in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport—had suggested a runway. That does not really cover the issue. The Minister is saying that the policy would come from the region but, if the Government had initiated such a major change, surely they would then have to ask for a revision of the strategy.

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. That is on the assumption that there is a procedure under way. There may not be. There may be a regional spatial strategy. There is no revision, there is no review going on. In other words, there is no process. Obviously, looking at the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 9, which is headed "RSS: further procedure", that would arise only in those circumstances.
	However, I am not so sure because the airport must come under major infrastructure projects. I am not using this as a defensive answer, although it is the reasonable one because it is a big example. In terms of proposals, a new motorway, airport or, dare I say it, a nuclear power station would probably be classed as a major project to be dealt with under the procedures set out much later the Bill. I am not sure whether simply proposing, in the case that the noble Lord gives, an expansion of an existing airport—there is already an airport there in the example that he used—would be covered by that. I do not know at the moment. It is certainly a major infrastructure project; that I can clearly understand. Whether that would amount to having to redraw the whole of the regional spatial strategy, I cannot say off the top of my head. It is something that I shall get advice on beforehand. I understand the concern.
	In fact, I am a bit surprised that the proposals for Stansted have not figured more in our deliberations. It is due to the incredible professionalism of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in not pushing his own local backyard issues from the Dispatch Box. That is a tribute.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. We shall read his answers very carefully and he has indicated that he will look at the matter again before we discuss these issues again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 10 [Secretary of State: additional powers]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Page 5, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) Before taking any step under subsection (1), (3) or (5) the Secretary of State shall consult the RPB and shall seek the advice of each authority in the region which is an authority falling within section 5(3)."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 provides that before the Secretary of State directs an RPB to prepare a draft revision or prepares it, if the RPB fails to comply with various matters, including that direction, or revokes an RSS or part of it he,
	"shall consult the RPB and shall seek the advice of each authority in the region",
	which is essentially a county or unitary district, as already identified in the earlier clause as amended.
	So, if the Secretary of State decides that he wants five runways at Stansted and wants to change the RSS to provide for it, he has to come and talk to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I think that the Minister underestimates the forcefulness of his refusal to get dragged into any current issues when Stansted was last mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, probably feels that he has come to the end of the runway on that one.
	When we were debating Clause 10 in Committee, the Minister stressed that these overarching powers were only reserve powers and that the Government would not expect that the Secretary of State would ever need to give a direction to a regional planning body to prepare a draft revision. He said twice that,
	"revisions . . . are not something that will be governed by central diktat".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. 1172.]
	He also said that this was a sensible safeguard, that a reserve power was the best way of dealing with it and that he would use the powers of direction only in exceptional circumstances.
	As I said earlier, unwillingly acknowledging —I was about to say accepting, but acknowledging is closer to the mark—that the role of the Secretary of State was written for him by the Government in all this, I am seeking to insert a degree of consultation and communication with both the regional planning body that the Secretary of State will have judged not to be doing the job and with relevant authorities before he takes the step.
	We may hear that the Secretary of State would do that without being told to do so by the legislation. I simply make the point I made on an earlier amendment; that is, that if the Minister can get out of his mind the image of his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister as being the current Secretary of State and think of the worst possible example, that is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is almost a case of deja vu. I shall make clear for the record that we would not expect the Secretary of State ever to have to direct a regional planning body to prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy or to prepare one himself. As I have said before, these provisions are in the Bill simply as a safeguard. What happens now and will continue to happen in the future is that the regional planning body will discuss with the government office when a revision is needed and the kind of topics it should cover and take the revision forward on that basis. That goes back to our discussion on an earlier amendment: why should they tell anyone that they are going to do it? First there will be an examination in public. Someone has to organise the planning inspectorate. They have to be aware of providing staff and resources to do that, so there is good reason to discuss it with the government office.
	Similarly, the power to revoke all or part of the regional spatial strategy is a procedural safeguard. There might be occasions when part of the regional spatial strategy had become seriously out of date before a new revision could be completed and it would be helpful in the interests of clarity if it was revoked. Any revocation is something that would be done in discussion with the regional planning body and as a matter of good practice the Government would always give reasons for the action taken.
	To impose a requirement to seek advice and consult before exercising powers that are included in the Bill as a safeguard, frankly is unreasonable. Nor do we see any case for this in principle. The powers are there as a safeguard. If they ever have to be used it would be in the most exceptional circumstances and reasons would be given. I do not think that one can ask for more than that. I shall stop singing my right honourable friend's praises in case he gets the wrong idea.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, if the powers are there as a procedural safeguard, why do we not put in a procedural safeguard that the Secretary of State will do what the Minister says he will do? It is another case where the parliamentary draftsmen might put their drafting where the Minister's mouth is. I recognise that we are not going to make progress on this and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
	Clause 12 [Supplementary]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Page 6, line 34, leave out subsection (4).

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, when I spoke to this amendment in Committee the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, hinted that I was a conspiracy theorist, so it is important that I clarify my reasons for coming back to this issue of who is the relevant Secretary of State for the purposes of regional spatial strategies. I reassure your Lordships that with this amendment I am genuinely questioning this legislation's adaptability in relation to future governance arrangements rather than pursuing a conspiracy theory.
	I understand that the way Clause 12(4) defines the Secretary of State by function is unusual in a Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, did partly answer my query in Committee. The Minister explained that the purpose of defining the Secretary of State in this way was to ensure that Clause 2(2) cannot be interpreted as requiring policies prepared by any other Secretary of State to be included in the regional spatial strategy if those policies relate to the development and use of land in the region. So, for example, the regional spatial strategy will not contain the policies of Secretaries of State for Education or Health, because even though they relate to land use, they are not primarily concerned with it. I think that that is right and I have no argument with that aspect of Clause 12(4).
	However, I remain concerned about why there is no mention of regions in the definition of "Secretary of State" in Clause 12(4). In subsection (4) the Secretary of State is defined as the Secretary of State who has for the time being,
	"general responsibility for policy in relation to the development and use of land".
	At the moment that Secretary of State happens also to have responsibility for the regions.
	We know that Prime Ministers and all governments rearrange ministerial responsibilities. So, if that situation were to change, would the Secretary of State who is in charge of general policy on planning always necessarily be the right Minister to lead on regional spatial strategies, as opposed to the Secretary of State responsible for the regions? There is my own situation with the Conservative shadow team. We now have a Minister responsible for the regions.
	Part 1 of the Bill deals solely with the regional spatial strategies. In other words, it deals with land use, planning, houses, infrastructure and so on for particular regions. It does not deal with general planning policy—those provisions come later in the Bill—for example, on compulsory purchase or major infrastructure projects or simplified planning zones. I would have thought that was a very good argument for putting regional spatial strategies firmly in the orbit of whichever Secretary of State happens to be in charge of the regions.
	I would simply be interested to know from the Minister why the Government have chosen not to do that. If the explanation is simply that in the current circumstances it makes no difference, thus we need not worry about it, I ask why the regions are not added to the existing definition of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord has a problem with the notion of adaptability. He says that at the moment it happens to be a happy coincidence that regions and planning are in the same place. That might not be the case in the future. I think that the answer is that we have to deal with what is in front of us. It is impossible to envisage every change of circumstances.
	Currently we have that happy coincidence and it is important. In any event, I think that one could safely argue that a Secretary of State with overall responsibility for planning would always play a leading role in regional matters. So, I certainly understand what the noble Lord is saying and the point he is getting at. He has explained it rather better this evening than he did the last time we went around this course. I am not making any allegations here. It would be wrong of me to do so. I do not think that the noble Lord sees conspiracies everywhere; he is not that kind of person. I was being slightly facetious.
	Our view is that whoever has general responsibility for the planning system—not the geographical units of those plans—must be finally accountable for the policies in a regional spatial strategy, particularly where there is no regional assembly. That is after all the key point of a system which is reliant on regional spatial planning.
	So I understand the point, but I think that at the moment we are content with the structure we have set up. It falls to the Secretary of State with that responsibility to ensure that all others who have a bearing on regional planning in different ways are aware of their overall role in pulling things together, co-ordinating them and ensuring that the regions function well and in a coherent way. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He obviously realised the point that I was trying to make. Perhaps I did not make it well the first time round. We are concerned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said several times, not just with the current situation. The previous planning legislation lasted for many years, although it may have been tinkered with. Once planning legislation has been set in place it is not changed lightly because that is a complicated process. It could well be that, as in the shadow Conservative team, the jobs are separated. I have noted what the Minister has said. The Government may like to reconsider the matter before Third Reading to see whether there should be slightly more clarity about any future circumstance. However, today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 45:
	Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"COMMENCEMENT OF PART 2
	Part 2 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a guide to its provisions designed for the general public."

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, Amendment No. 45 inserts a new clause, which states that:
	"Part 2 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a guide to its provisions designed for the general public".
	At the previous stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lady Hamwee introduced a debate on understanding and plain English. I know that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, had a great deal of sympathy with her point. He gave some assurances that, with officials in his department, he would discuss how we could get into the public domain a guide to the changes in the planning system that ordinary people—those who do not necessarily live with the matter day to day—could understand. Some of us have lived with the matter on a day-to-day basis for quite some time and it has become a little clearer. This is a new system and it is important that people understand it. If the community is to be properly involved in the consultation, people need to be able to understand it.
	This amendment may not be the appropriate way in which to deal with the matter, but I hope that it will give the Minister a chance to tell us what action he has taken since we last discussed the issue. He said that he would take this back to his department as he believed that it was important that we had a plain English guide to the new system and to the new hierarchy in planning legislation. I hope that he will be able to report favourably on those discussions and that something will be forthcoming, even if not in the form of the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have a simple and positive answer for the noble Baroness. We absolutely agree that there is a need for guidance for what I shall call the person in the street. In the past I would have said "the man in the street", but now we talk about persons. I am very happy to give an assurance that we shall work to produce a guide, not just for Part 2, but for the whole reform system for the person in the street in time for commencement. I cannot be clearer than that. I think it would be overkill to legislate for it in this way. I hope that my statement will be accepted.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, when my noble friend and I were talking about this amendment, I had no serious expectation that it would appear on the face of the Bill. As it is important, perhaps I can check what the Minister has said. He says, "We shall work towards that". Is that an assurance that the Government will publish before commencement? I am not trying to trip him up; I want to be clear about the assurance.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I understand the qualification. I am happy to give an assurance that we shall work to produce a guide, not just for Part 2, but for the reform system as a whole in time for commencement. We shall work to produce a guide for the whole Bill in time for commencement.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, my noble friend is whispering to me, "Does that mean that it will actually happen?" We will have to take the Minister at face value and hope that what he says will become reality. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 46:
	Page 7, line 34, leave out from second "development" to end of line 35.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, with this amendment we are back to county issues again. We are seeking to maintain the strategic dimension of the county planning function as it relates to undertaking a survey. I received a helpful letter from the Minister setting out exactly what a "county matter" means in the context of Clause 14. I thank the Minister for that letter, which was also sent to other noble Lords and the Library of the House.
	The letter makes it clear that Clause 14(1) and (2) provide a survey function for county councils to underpin their responsibilities for mineral and waste planning only. The county councils' other responsibilities, such as highways and transportation, are not conceived as relevant to this clause. The letter goes on to say that when the county councils advise and are consulted on regional spatial strategies—this is slightly imprecise, surely the Minister means when county councils are consulted on the revision of regional spatial strategies, but I let that pass—and when they are consulted on local development documents, these are the processes through which the county councils properly influence plan-making and have their wide range of responsibilities taken into account in so far as they affect development and the planning of development in their area.
	Clause 19(2)(g) provides for local planning authorities to have regard to county councils' community strategies in two-tier areas. I was pleased to see this part of the letter from the Minister that in the Government's view community strategies are particularly important. I know from my experience that a tremendous amount of work is going into councils' community strategies. They are totally relevant to everything that happens in a county area and partnerships with districts and voluntary bodies, and there is a tremendous amount of work going into these community strategies. They are very relevant indeed.
	This is a comprehensive response, and we appreciate that these various processes are in place. However, the central question remains why the Government are curtailing the county councils' survey function so greatly. Why do they insist on pursuing policies that consistently undermine their own objectives for local government? This is not the way to achieve joined-up services. County councils have a general duty to seek to promote the economic, environmental and social well being of their communities, by drawing up community strategies that are focused not narrowly on particular functions, but are designed to be outward-looking.
	We are attempting to use our place in the community to exercise leadership for all our citizens. Reducing this survey function does not help us, our partners or districts to achieve cross-cutting objectives or better service delivery. District councils might welcome monitoring support from county councils. This provision also threatens to undermine the retention of planning resources in the local government system. It is a bad idea, and I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we keep coming back to the issue of county councils. I hope that I can be positive in my explanation. Certainly, I will use the material that I have, so that it is helpful for Third Reading if need be. I hope that we can put this one to rest in the end.
	Clause 14 provides for local authorities with minerals and waste planning responsibilities—which are county councils in two-tier areas—to keep under review matters that are likely to affect mineral and waste development, or the planning of that development. These are referred to as the "county matters". Amendment No. 46 removes the reference to county matters, and the effect would be to require the county council to review planning matters and undertake survey work for areas of all district councils within the county boundary.
	We recognise that some small districts might be stretched to undertake full survey work. We have discussed the role of the counties, and I reiterate that they will play an important role with survey work being one of those aspects where county councils can contribute.
	Clause 14(3) provides for the Secretary of State to require by regulations or direct a county council to keep under review the wider matters relating to land use planning and development referred to in Clause 13(2). The draft regulations propose that the matters to be kept under review are those set out in Clause 13(2)(a) and (c) to (e) and that the results should be made available to local planning authorities.
	It would be inappropriate to specify in the Bill that all counties must review all matters in respect of all the areas of district councils in the county. That would be ridiculous, given the context of the Bill. It would remove ownership of the process from the district, even though the work is essential for preparing local development documents. It would also take no account of the different circumstances or capacities of district councils; indeed, it would treat them all the same.
	Our approach can be adapted to particular circumstances. The issues that a county would need to keep under review may change over time, as the new planning system evolves. The beauty of the regulations is that they provide the flexibility to adapt to that. I hope that, in the light of those comments, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment, but I must put on the record again a sentence that I used before, as it may help those who assist with the drafting of opposition amendments: by removing the reference to county matters, Amendment No. 46 would require the county council to review planning matters and undertake survey work for areas of all district councils within the boundary. There would be a requirement to review for all district councils within the boundary. That cannot be what the noble Lord intended with his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, that is how we operate in Essex. With our county community partnership, we are involved with each district partnership. In fact, we pay for a lot of the work that the districts do. We have local service agreements under which we work with district councils. We share responsibility. They take some services from us, and we work in partnership to develop legal services and purchasing services.
	Some of the discussions that we have had suggest that people do not realise how the two-tier system works. There is a partnership between the district councils and the county council, and it has changed a lot in the past couple of years. The development of the well-being clause and the development of the community strategies have changed the whole process, even the comprehensive performance assessment process. This week, every district in Essex is having a CPA. The Audit Commission asks me how we work with each district council, as part of the CPA process. Things have changed so much.
	I think that, when the Government were drawing up their regional planning policies, they did not realise how their earlier local government Bills would operate. What we are doing now relates to the local government Bill before last. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was not responsible for it; he was not doing that job then. We are operating in the spirit that the Government wanted, and it has changed the relationship between districts and counties remarkably: it has improved it. We are involved in the process with every district council in Essex, and I suggest that we continue with what is happening in a sensible way in the best interests of the community in the county. The problem with much of the Bill is that local government has moved on in the two or three years since people started talking about planning policies.
	I am not content with what the Minister said. We will have to come back to the matter with some vigour at Third Reading. We need to set out clearly what is happening, and we do not want to undo the good that is being done, in the process of developing community strategies in local government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 47:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
	"LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
	(1) The local planning authority must prepare a plan for their area to be known as a local development plan.
	(2) The plan must set out—
	(a) the authority's objectives in relation to the development and use of land in their area;
	(b) their general policies for the implementation of those objectives.
	(3) The plan may also set out specific policies in relation to any part of the area of the authority.
	(4) Regulations under this section may prescribe the form and content of the plan.
	(5) In preparing a local development plan, the authority must have regard to—
	(a) current national policies;
	(b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the authority is situated, if the area is outside Greater London;
	(c) the spatial development strategy if the authority are a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London;
	(d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority;
	(e) the Wales Spatial Plan if any part of the authority's area adjoins Wales;
	(f) the community strategy prepared by the authority;
	(g) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;
	(h) the resources likely to be available for implementing the plan;
	(i) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.
	(6) The authority must also—
	(a) carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the plan;
	(b) prepare a report of the findings of the appraisal.
	(7) The community strategy is the strategy prepared by an authority under section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (strategies for promoting well-being).
	(8) A plan is a local development plan only in so far as it—
	(a) is adopted by resolution of the local planning authority as a local development plan;
	(b) is approved by the Secretary of State."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister thought that I was going to be quiet all day. I have had a lovely day—just think of the time that I spent listening carefully. It is my turn now.
	We moved a large number of amendments in Committee to try to clarify the bewildering number of documents that would come before councils and authorities in bringing together the planning development scheme. Those amendments did not find much favour with the Government, so I shall try to adopt a different tactic.
	We have a fair number of amendments here again, but their aim is to replace the cumbersome and confusing system of local development schemes, frameworks, documents, and development plan documents, with a single, simple, local development plan for each local authority. It replaces the proposed English system with a simpler Welsh system, proposed in Part 6 of this Bill, making necessary adjustments to reflect the different forms of spatial planning in the two countries.
	The Government have said that they want to achieve simplicity in planning and to "de-layer" the planning system. The Bill as it stands risks replacing the removal of structure plans with a whole range of previously unheard of documents, schemes, frameworks and plans.
	Announcing the publication of the Bill on 4 December 2002, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described the changes as including new roles for both business and the community. He said,
	"The lack of clarity in the system makes the outcome of decision-making unclear and it hurts business. Planning needs to reconnect with people. It is seen as remote and difficult to understand. It is seen as a system set out for the convenience of planners, not consumers".
	I am sure that the noble Lord finds those words ringing in his mind, as he recollects them.
	The Government propose that the local development framework shall be set out in a local development plan scheme comprising local development documents, some of which are development plan documents; namely, the core strategy, area action plans and a proposals map. Other documents will be local development documents but not the development plan documents, namely supplementary planning documents. A statement of community involvement will be treated as a development plan document—sometimes.
	These documents will require sustainability appraisal and may need strategic environmental assessment. The development plan will be the development plan documents plus the regional spatial strategy or spatial development strategy. Noble Lords are still with me on all this, I hope! Or, to put it in the Government's own acronyms in a document entitled Creating Local Development Frameworks, the LDF shall be set out in an LDS, comprising LDDs, some of which are DPDs, namely the CS, AAPs and a proposals map. Other documents will be LDDs but not DPDs, namely SPDs, and the SCI, although the SCI will be treated as a DPD—sometimes. These documents will require SA and may need SEA. The DP will be the DPDs plus the RSS or SDS.
	There must be a better way of dealing with this serious aspect of planning and planning control.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, are they affected by STV?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, that could be included as well!
	The proposals are not only difficult to understand but are not set up for the convenience of planners or the comprehensibility of anybody trying to deal with the planning system.
	This proposal for a new set of documents to replace the widely understood concept of a local plan does not come from practitioners in the field. This simplifying amendment is supported by the Town and Country Planning Association, which includes over 100 local planning authorities within its membership, and Friends of the Earth, which represents some of the many users of the planning system.
	These amendments closely follow proposals by the Town and Country Planning Association, with some tweaking by us, and removal of the binding nature of inspectors' reports. The proposals for this complex local development framework scheme have been widely criticised by developers, who find them extremely hard to understand.
	In Wales, where the Minister responsible for this subject in the Welsh Assembly is a professional planner, they have been too wise to contemplate such a proposal. The amendments, which are based entirely on the system proposed for Wales, would bring the benefits to England of the system that the Principality will enjoy.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in Committee that,
	"the provisions of Part 6 have been developed through close co-operation between the United Kingdom Government"—
	that sounds good—
	"and the Assembly with the goal of achieving planning reform in a way that reflects the Assembly's aspirations as to how the planning system should operate in Wales. I am sure the noble Lord knows that as Part 6 stands, it enjoys enthusiastic, all-party support in Wales".—[Official Report, 5/2/04; col. 890.]
	Regrettably, Part 2 of the Bill does not command all-party support—I am sure the Minister understands that now. There is no enthusiasm for it in England. The response of local councils and planning professionals to the proposals is generally one of complete dismay at its complexity. An unamended and complex system of the kind proposed by the Government will militate against community involvement.
	These amendments, though many, seek to bring clarity where there is confusion and approachability where there are acronyms. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is not bad in six minutes. I am tempted to play the noble Baroness at her own game and read out some of the 50-odd amendments, which are written in gobbledegook.
	In Committee, I had a single sheet of A4 paper with a little diagram explaining how each document fed into the other—some were statutory, some were not. I am quite happy to make it available if we can find it.
	The noble Baroness can have a bit of fun with all her initials. Fancy sitting there all day, waiting for that point. She comes along, with a proposal from the Conservative Party, to impose on England what has been chosen by the elected Welsh Assembly, for Wales. Why does it fit for Wales? The first reason is unitary local government. I have seen no proposal for unitary English government from the Conservative Party. The noble Baroness did not imply that that was part and parcel of it. In other words, the system works in Wales because the governance arrangements and the local government structure are different there, and the devolved Welsh Assembly chose to use it.
	I do not know who the Minister is in charge of planning, but the noble Baroness seems to set great store by the fact that that person is a professional planner. Ministers who are experts are dangerous people. That is not an attack on that Minister. Ministers do not need to be experts—that is quite dodgy.
	The Welsh Assembly chose this system for Wales to fit its local government structure. We do not have the same structure in England, and it certainly would not work here.
	I made a lengthy speech in Committee, and if I shared the notes with the noble Baroness, which I am not about to do, we would be here for the rest of the night. I described the new system, explaining it in words that could be easily understood, instead of all those acronyms she used. Using acronyms is very confusing to people outside. So far, during the Bill's proceedings, I have never once, on Second Reading or in Committee, fallen into the trap of using acronyms. The Civil Service loves acronyms—there are catalogues of them—but they do not explain things in the way that people need to understand them.
	I do not want to go over this in great detail, because I would be repeating what I said about how each document is structured, how each document is formulated, how one document leads to another, how it is a portfolio system of a set of documents which makes them incredibly flexible, and how some of them will be subject to examination in public while others will not because they are subsidiary or daughter documents. I thought that I had explained that perfectly satisfactorily. Quite clearly, the map that I was using at the time is not available. What we need on Report with this type of operation is a screen at the end of the Chamber so that we can explain things more easily than is possible by reading out lists of acronyms.
	We operate a plan-led system. We must have comprehensive up-to-date plans and we believe that the new system will enable that. The noble Lady may want to defend the present system, but I remind her that, 14 years after the system was put in place, 29 local planning authorities have yet to adopt an area-wide development plan for their districts. That is an absolute disgrace. Exacerbated by the time it takes to put plans in place, with a complicated process of multiple deposits, examinations and modification stages, the present system has still not stopped thousands of objections being considered at examination. For example, I am told that there were 20,000 objectors to the unitary development plan in Leeds.
	We have set out a clear system for local planning that contains straightforward elements that link in a clear way. Each of those documents to which the noble Lady referred—in a way that nobody would understand—are clearly linked. One leads to another. The amendments would set out an alternative approach. We do not think that that approach would work because it is based on an entirely different system—unitary development plans across Wales and a different role for the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Assembly has decided that it wants to go down a different route to our approach in England. I remind colleagues in this House that that is what devolution is all about.
	I believe that we are introducing a system to deal with some of the problems, which I could set out in answering all of these amendments—most if not all of which we dealt with in Committee. The system will be faster and more flexible, and more responsive to plan making in England. It will allow much more effective community involvement than we have today. The idea that because the system is faster means that it is less fair is not true. There will be more involvement and more opportunity for involvement. We are not imposing an English system on Wales and the Welsh system should not be imposed on England—it could not be, because our local government structure is entirely different. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. Otherwise, I shall read them all out for the record.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister seems to has lost his usual cool. Somewhere along the line I must be striking a note which is causing him irritation. The irritation can only be because I am getting at his new system of development and planning control. The only reason that I am standing here getting at that system is because there are people out there beyond the Doors of this Parliament, who are completely perplexed by what is proposed and totally against it.
	We do not dream up these things without having some evidence that people are concerned. There is plenty of evidence that those involved in the planning world are concerned about this plethora of planning documents. The Minister may say that they interweave with each other. However, I can knit and drop a stitch, but I cannot knit a jersey. No matter how many loops there are leading things one into another, somewhere along the line there will be a tumble and the system will not work. The system is complex and difficult. It may not be as difficult and complex as it sounds, but it sounds manic. That is what is generally considered.
	As I said in Committee, we know that the UDP system was not absolutely brilliant. It had its flaws, one of which was the time-scale. The Minister told me that 29 area wide plans have not been done and I have no reason to doubt that, but why have the authorities been allowed to get away with that? My local authority would not have been allowed to get away with not producing a UDP and getting it on the stocks in a timely fashion; the elected members would not have allowed that. It says something about the people involved in those areas that that has been allowed to happen. However, the system is simple. The Welsh, whether or not they have a different unitary government, have a simpler system. The UDP system has worked within the rationale of the Government and the local government of the present day, and we believe that it is perfectly possible to translate it back, although the Government are hell-bent on everything being regional.
	I said what I said about acronyms slightly tongue in cheek—it is always desperately worrying when one has to explain a joke. However, since the Minister has risen to the bait a little, I hope that the issue has been raised. The Minister is right in saying that he has never used an acronym in discussing this matter, but he is going to be alone. Acronyms will come into being whatever happens, and they will all be received with the usual incomprehension by people reading papers and trying to draw conclusions about what it is all about.
	The Government have set up a system to fail, as it has far too many tracks down it. The idea that it will engage the public and give them a real feeling of being involved is probably quite wide of the mark. I know that the Minister does not like all my amendments, and I dread the thought that he may go through them all one by one. What a threat at this time of night!

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I want to take this matter seriously. I could have gone through the amendments, but I realised that that was not the intention behind them. I realise that the noble Baroness was having some fun at what she thought was my expense. However, I want to make her an offer. Since only the Front Benches are present, why do not my four noble colleagues accept the invitation to come into the ODPM and listen to the civil servants who put the legislation together explain how all the documents fit together? They will do so using modern English, and show how the thing will gel before Third Reading.
	If there is confusion, and the Front Benches accept the offer that I have made to take them through it, they will see why the confusion outside is totally unnecessary and unfounded. There is always confusion with a Bill going through Parliament; it has been in this House and the other House a long time and has changed substantially because of all the changes that we have made. I know that I am taking too long—I am only intervening. However, I wanted to make that offer. Noble Lords do not have to accept it now, but I strongly advise them to do so—otherwise, maybe at Third Reading if we return to the matter, I shall have some fun at the expense of the noble Baroness. My offer is meant genuinely, because I take what she says as genuine. It is a question of linking the documents with the new terminology and explaining the matter easily over a cup of tea, in less than an hour. The noble Baroness will come away thinking, "Ah, I have something here after all".

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making the offer of tea—it was coffee last time, was it not? This is precisely why we felt that it was important to table the amendment that my noble friend Lady Maddock moved about the "Rough Guide" to the legislation, as it were. The Minister says that this offer is just between him and the Front Benches—and Hansard and everyone who needs it—but it should not be necessary to have a one-to-one explanation. We would be very pleased to help to find some way in which to get the "Rough Guide" into language that is more intelligible.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I should like to intervene as well. I would welcome the cup of tea, but—

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is correct. It is very kind of the Minister to invite us to tea, and I should like to think about that offer rather than simply turn it down. However, it might be helpful on the basis of looking at a draft of the guide that the noble Baroness has put into her amendment. I believe that we can do something about this matter. It is perfectly possible to go on having a humorous discussion across the Benches, but I believe that matter to be really serious. If there is a draft of the guide or another way of dealing with this, perhaps we should think about it before Third Reading—in case we decide to come back to it with perhaps fewer amendments, and so that I do not run the risk of the Minister spending the whole of Third Reading reading them back to me. I am grateful for his reply. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 48 to 56 not moved.]
	Clause 15 [Local development scheme]:
	[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
	Clause 16 [Minerals and waste development scheme]:
	[Amendments Nos. 59 to 62 not moved.]
	Clause 17 [Local development documents]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 9, line 27, at end insert—
	"( ) the local planning authority's core planning strategy which shall include—
	(i) a statement of the development and use which the local planning authority wish to encourage during any period specified in the strategy;
	(ii) a statement of the environmental, social and economic objectives which are relevant to the attainment of the development and use mentioned in sub-paragraph (i); and
	(iii) the authority's general policies in respect of the matters in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii);"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this amendment brings us to Clause 17 and deals with matters that should be included in the local planning authority's core planning strategy. Happily, in this part of the Bill acronyms are not used as much they are in the first part. I have felt so acutely conscious of using acronyms, even when quoting bits of the Bill, that I have felt uncomfortable about it. In most cases, I think that the acronyms I quoted were a matter of parliamentary counsel's drafting and not of my speech. As I said, however, we do not have to deal with acronyms here.
	We tabled an amendment in Committee which, although much shorter, had the same thrust. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that providing for a strategic planning statement was unnecessary because guidance and regulations would provide. This amendment uses the wording of the draft regulations, but with the substitution of one small word in paragraph (ii). The noble Lord said that making the amendment we had proposed would not add anything and that the,
	"issue can be more and better finessed in the regulations".—[Official Report, 27/1/04; col. 101.]
	As we have draft regulations which will not be amendable, I thought that this might be the opportunity to understand whether the Government think they have the right approach in the regulations, or whether the words I have used in this amendment need, to use the noble Lord's word, to be "finessed". I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I congratulate the noble Baroness on the subtlety of her amendment. However, our view really has not changed since the earlier stage of the Bill. The amendment seeks to outline what the core should include. That would mean that a core strategy with specific contents would be required of all local planning authorities until such time as Parliament agreed otherwise. Our view remains the same. It is neither necessary nor sensible for the core strategy to be on the face of the Bill. We have argued this before, but I shall make the point again. Regulations will require every local planning authority to have a core strategy and will set out what it should include, at Regulation 14(1).
	Our view is that primary legislation is too rigid and difficult to change. We certainly do not have many opportunities for planning Bills to make perhaps necessary changes. We think that it is better to set out the broad framework describing local development documents in the legislation and then to leave it to regulations and policy statements to flesh out the detail of what those are and what they contain. We believe that that gives the planning system the robustness and flexibility it requires. It also provides local planning authorities with flexibility in creating local development documents as regulations can be updated in the light of good practice. I know that the noble Baroness is very keen to ensure that local good practice is used, and that is certainly our intent in ensuring that regulations are up to date in their import and impact.
	We have already received quite a lot of responses to the draft regulations. The question is raised in the noble Baroness's mind as to whether they are absolutely correct. Does the noble Baroness think that her wording—it uses the formulation currently contained in the regulations—is right? How would she change it to ensure that it kept abreast of developments and the way in which the planning framework is inclined to change over time? That is the difficulty which the noble Baroness creates for us and for herself in her approach to this part of the legislation.
	Having heard my reply, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I find it difficult to envisage such a change in circumstances that the words used in the amendment—I filched them from Government—will become out of date. They are not intended to be exclusive. Having moved the amendment, I realised that I had not referred in words to the response to consultation. The Minister has not answered my question. I am happy to answer his. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 64:
	Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) These should include the policies in respect of—
	(a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;
	(b) the conservation of natural resources;
	(c) the improvement of the physical environment;
	(d) the management of traffic."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 64 is a partner amendment to Amendment No. 30 which I moved earlier. I move this amendment to ascertain whether the Government have anything further to put on the record with regard to this part of the Bill. The amendment applies to the local development document rather than the regional spatial strategy. It picks up the same part of the 1991 Act which refers to local plans. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I recall Amendment No. 30. I can give almost the same reply. In the context of the local planning authority these are important considerations. No one gainsays that. But they are not the only ones. I made that point earlier. We do not think it right to single out particular policy considerations on the face of the Bill as it would cut across the integrated and holistic approach of the new system.
	Local planning authorities must consider those issues—the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land; the conservation of natural resources; the improvement of the physical environment; and certainly the management of traffic—alongside a much wider range of matters as is already set out in planning policy statement 12, together with further policy requirements as set out in Annex A on page 37.
	A further safeguard is the requirement for a sound evidence base and the requirements for sustainability assessment and strategic environmental assessment, again as set out in the paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 of planning policy statement 12.
	Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies which influence the nature of places and how they develop. Global and national policies may change over time and, therefore, we should not prescribe for these in legislation, as many will emerge as a matter of good practice.
	That goes a little further than what I intended to say. In other words, these are very important considerations but they are not the only ones. For that reason, it would be wrong to put them on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
	Clause 18 [Statement of community involvement]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 67:
	Page 10, line 20, at end insert "and use of land"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this amendment seeks to amend Clause 18, which deals with the statement of community involvement. It seeks to extend the persons who are the subject or the object—I am not sure which—of the activity under Clause 18(2). That subsection provides that:
	"The statement of community involvement is a statement of the authority's policy as to the involvement in the exercise of the authority's functions . . . of persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to development in their area".
	My amendment seeks to add the words "and use of land".
	The Minister very helpfully sent out a compendium letter, if I may describe it as that, which picked up a number of points made in Committee. One of those concerned the definition of "development" and the definition of "use". He pointed out the differences between those and said that planning permission is required for the carrying out of a development as defined. References in the Bill to development alone refer to development and control matters. References in the Bill to the development and use of land refer not only to development in the development control sense but also to the ongoing use of land where there is not necessarily any change or activity envisaged in respect of it.
	I tabled the amendment before receiving the letter. Nevertheless, I was very grateful to receive the letter as it seems to me to spell out exactly what I was concerned about in tabling the amendment—that is, that the statement of community involvement should be wide enough to include those who are interested in the ongoing use of land where there is not necessarily any change or activity envisaged. It must be right to ask whether the Government believe that things are right now. Do they want change or no change? If Clause 18(2) is confined only to those who have an interest in matters relating to development control, that seems to me to be too narrow. I was glad to have the relevant definition. It was helpful to be given that and the distinctions between the terms. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it would be ridiculous for me to read out my notes bearing in mind that the noble Baroness tabled the amendment before she received the letter, as she said. The letter is quite lengthy.
	We want the Bill to be clear that both tiers of plans should include policies for ongoing use as well as development. We do not think that there are any grounds for concern that the wording of the Bill will in any way exclude parties with an interest in conservation or those opposing development for that matter.
	As the letter was received after the amendment was tabled, I am happy in the time available between now and Third Reading to do a triple check on the use of the words in this part of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am very grateful for that. I do not think that it would involve any loss of face at all on the part of the Government, particularly as they have three-quarters raised the matter, to make it wholly clear on the face of the Bill that the involvement is as extensive as we all believe that it should be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Page 10, line 21, at end insert "including councillors"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the amendment adds the role of local councillors to the matters addressed by statements of community involvement. That might seem odd, as it is the authority's policy on the statement of community involvement which is being put forward. Since the introduction of executive arrangements in councils, decision making is concentrated mainly in the hands of a small number of executive members. Other councillors may well be on the authority's planning committee, but the majority of councillors will have no decision-making powers beyond the small number of matters reserved for full council meetings.
	The representational role of those back-bench councillors becomes more important as a result and one of the areas in which the public most expects representation is on planning matters. The role of ward councillors is not always clear at the moment and it certainly needs to be enhanced. The amendment would ensure that the role of councillors in community involvement in planning decisions is set out and, consequently, will improve the representations that they will make. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this issue was raised in Committee and we set out our firm commitment to community involvement. I have repeated that throughout the process. Today we have published our policy paper on the objectives for community involvement in planning, copies of which have been made available to the Front Benches and placed in the Library of the House. I hope I am not going to be contradicted on that. It is good bedtime reading. It is an important statement of the vision and I hope will be a useful description of many of the things we are doing to promote community involvement—not just in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 68 requires local planning authorities to consult councillors. They have a vital role in leading the process of community involvement. That is part of their role as democratically elected representatives They are spokespersons for their areas and their role should be clear. I encourage councillors to take the fullest part in promoting and facilitating the process and the community involvement paper makes that clear. But what is the point of the amendment? The councillors are members of the local authority. They will, in effect, be responsible for their own statements of community involvement. The amendment seems to imply that councillors will be divorced from the process. If that is happening there are real problems in the local authority concerned.
	I have never been a councillor, but you need to know the difference between governance and management. The councillor's job is not to manage the authority, but to govern it. The manager's job is not to govern it—that is the councillor's job. The councillors need to know where the dividing line is. There are real problems in authorities if we have reached the position where councillors who own the decisions of the authority do not feel part of it. They will all have different roles, including scrutiny, planning and so on, but they are all members of that authority.
	If the amendment is meant to refer to councillors in other authorities—which could be the case—that is covered by the arrangements that the local planning authority must make to consult other local planning authorities on its local development document. So we cannot see a problem for the amendment to tackle. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is aware of any serious problems, I will be grateful if she will let the department have her notes about them.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—I am dredging my memory—I was going to ask if that meant that the issue would be a key decision that would have to be reported as part of the forward plan. I am thinking of practising councillors; but it cannot be a key decision in this context as it does not lend itself to that. It would be helpful for us to understand, in the context of the mechanisms now in place—with reference to the relevant local government Act—the basis upon which the matter should be referred to all councillors.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there were several reasons for raising this matter. One was that, on the whole, I believe that councils are becoming more and more divorced from governance. I do not say "management"; I do not really know why the Minister raised the issue of governance and management because that is not germane to the amendment. However, under the last licensing Bill, councillors were excluded from making representations. Members are excluded from making any decisions that have anything to do with any planning anywhere within their wards or areas. That cannot be right because there must be policy areas where they are absolutely enabled to take part.
	I believe that the two examples I have quoted make all the more relevant the reason for wanting to see councillors referred to on the face of the Bill as part of the group who are to be consulted formally or included in the discussions. A wider audience would be discussing the statement of community involvement and, by rights, they should have a role in that. That was the purpose of the amendment. I do not believe that it required too much jubilation. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 69:
	Page 10, line 21, at end insert—
	"(2A) An enterprise zone authority, urban development corporation, housing action trust or the urban regeneration agency shall prepare a statement of community involvement with respect to any functions falling within subsection (2) which it has power to exercise."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this amendment requires enterprise zone authorities, urban development corporations, housing action trusts and English Partnerships to prepare statements of community involvement where they exercise development control powers. We touched on this matter in Committee but did not really get anywhere with it. All those bodies can be empowered to determine planning applications.
	Local planning authorities will be obliged to prepare statements explaining how they will involve persons interested in development in their area in preparing local development plans and in making development control decisions. While urban development corporations and similar bodies will not be responsible for development plans, they may have powers to grant or refuse planning permission.
	Local authorities, which are democratically accountable, are required to produce statements of community involvement. That is on top of their existing statutory responsibilities to consult on and publicise planning applications and to make decisions in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Ministers clearly consider that this additional statement is required.
	The Minister's reply—that of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, no less—to this amendment in Committee was unfortunately unconvincing, again. He said that those bodies are subject to the obligation to,
	"determine the application in accordance with the development plan drawn up by the relevant local authority unless there were other material considerations".
	That is true, and so are local authorities. He said that these bodies are subject to,
	"requirements for publicity, the notification of planning applications and enabling representations to be made [on these bodies]".—[Official Report, 27/1/04; cols. 119–120.]
	That is true, and so are local authorities. The Minister said that those bodies must involve the community in decision-making. That is also true, and so must local authorities.
	The Government have just produced a document, Community Involvement in Planning: the Government's Objectives. Its front page says:
	"Planning shapes the places where people live and work. So it is right that people should be enabled and empowered to take an active part in the process. Strengthening community involvement is a key part of the Government's planning reforms".
	But nowhere in its 24 pages does the document mention enterprise zone authorities, urban development corporations, housing action trusts or English Partnerships. Community involvement is not only about local authorities and planning; it must be about these other bodies and planning decisions. We do not see how a statutory statement, subject to independent examination, is required for local councils but is not necessary for other bodies exercising the same powers.
	In Committee, the Minister made a complaint that the amendment did not work technically. Those advising our side on these matters do not agree. Clause 18 will apply the obligations of independent examination and powers of withdrawal and adoption to these other bodies' statements of community involvement. Contrary to the suggestion in Committee, an urban development corporation's statement of community involvement will not be a local development document, as under Clause 17 that is only the local planning authority statement of community involvement. A tidying-up amendment may be needed to the interpretation section, Clause 37, to extend the definition of "local planning authority" for the purposes of independent examination, withdrawal and adoption, that is, Clauses 20, 22 and 23, to these bodies. That could be tabled for Third Reading. If Ministers have other consequential technical amendments, they can bring them forward later.
	The Government envisage that we shall see a revived role for urban development corporations and English Partnership in planning major growth areas in this country. Those schemes will require effective public involvement to attain credibility. The need for statements of community involvement apply with as much, if not greater, force to those bodies as to local councils. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, the normal procedures relating to development control will apply to the urban development corporations and to English Partnerships, the statutory bodies. So in terms of development control, that is planning applications for a particular site or development, the normal procedures of consultation apply.
	I have always made it absolutely clear that in setting up delivery vehicles for the growth areas and for some of the housing renewal pathfinder areas—at the moment there are no delivery vehicles of a statutory nature, but there may be—it is not our intention to shortcut the consultation process. It is a different kind of management tool. They have a defined life. From memory, I think that we said 10 years for the two that we are consulting about in Milton Keynes and south Midlands at the present time. There are two in London so far but there will not be very many. They are a tool for getting action, but not for snuffing out people's opportunity to put their objections in and to have their five penn'orth. So far as development controls are concerned, the normal procedures would apply. I am more than happy to revisit this issue for Third Reading.
	It is important and completely different from what we have discussed in the rest of the day. Coming to it at this late hour I do not intend to delay the House but there are just a few points I shall put on the record.
	We discussed this issue in Committee. I described in some detail the consultations that urban development corporations and others would need to undertake, which mean that it is unnecessary to apply the statement of community involvement processes to them. I was faced with an acronym and I refused to use it. It was not spelled out for me.
	The amendment would require the enterprise zone authority, urban development corporation, housing action trust or the urban regeneration agency to prepare the statement of community involvement where it has the power to exercise any function. These functions are preparing the local development documents. The bodies in question can be given powers to determine planning applications. They have to determine the application in accordance with the development plan drawn up by the relevant local authority, unless the material considerations indicate otherwise. So the framework within which the delivery vehicle operates would have been subject to the involvement processes that we have already discussed.
	The statement of community involvement is an integral part of the process for preparing the local development documents and we think that it would be problematic to import it wholesale into the structures and ways of working of other bodies. The delivery vehicles are not all the same; they are fit for purpose for the area. In the Milton Keynes and south Midlands area one is an ordinary, standard urban development corporation—that is the west Northampton one. The one for Milton Keynes is an English Partnerships-led statutory authority. It is slightly different. It is not English Partnerships but they are using different powers of the law that already apply. We think it would be problematic to import this into different structures and ways of working. But they are still required to go through the consultation process.
	The nature of the beast, the body, when we put these agencies together is to ensure that the local authorities are represented; that they are not being snuffed out; that there will be places on the board and independent involvement. When the chair and chief executive are appointed, it would be wise indeed to ensure that they take the body of public opinion along with them as they perform their role as part of the big picture for the growth area, which it is a Minister's duty to put forward and explain.
	We would expect the local development documents to take due account of the urban development corporation's proposals for an area and would expect close consultation between the local planning authority and the urban development corporation. The statement of community involvement processes will apply.
	I have one final point: as a generalisation, the urban development corporations which are being set up are borrowing planning powers where the planning powers are coming over to them, only for the strategic sites in a locality. They are not taking all the planning powers of all the local authority area. It will apply only to the strategic development sites. Until planning permission is given—there may be developments under way—the planning would then revert back because it is a borrowing of the powers.
	Unlike former UDCs, or many of them, which have taken wholesale all the planning powers including modification to domestic dwellings, this will be for the strategic development sites for generating growth. This is a slightly different animal. I am happy to give this matter more thought so that on Third Reading we can give further clarification if necessary. It may be that we can put together a letter at an early stage between now and then to explain in greater detail why—there will be good reason—for example, they are not referred to in the document we have published today.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as always I am grateful to the Minister. I am always grateful, too, for sight of the documents. I am still waiting for the last one which we discussed a couple of weeks ago and for which I adjourned the House. Fortunately, I obtained a copy from the Library; it never turned up from the Minister's office. No doubt I shall still be waiting for this document also. Never mind. It is only a last point.
	I thank the Minister for taking this matter seriously. It seems to me that where there is a plethora or diversity of organisations that are dealing with strategic and urban development and which have planning powers, it is not impossible to ensure that there is a statement of community involvement. In many cases they work on a very wide front, dealing with employment, housing, and infrastructure. There are large areas involved and there would be merit in them being able to say that they have a statement of community involvement which has been tested, even if it is a fast-track testing. I always believe there is merit in my amendments. I leave that with the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 70 to 73 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Preparation of local development documents]:
	[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
	Clause 20 [Independent examination]:
	[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidation Bills

A message was brought from the Commons that they have ordered the committee appointed by them to meet with the Lords committee on Monday, 1 March at half-past four o'clock, as proposed by this House.
	House adjourned at nine minutes past ten o'clock.